Developing Responsible Citizens

By Steve Atwater | Published: April 20, 2012

Earlier this month as part of our strategic planning process, we created a new mission statement:  the mission of the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District is to develop productive, responsible, citizens who are prepared to be successful in a dynamic world.  I am pleased with the new statement and feel that it nicely describes our purpose.  One of the more interesting changes is the inclusion of the term citizen.  While we all agreed that a part of our purpose is to develop citizens, it is clear that if we are to meet the intent of the statement, then we will likely have to do more.  Our required half credit in US Government is probably not enough.  For after all, unlike math or reading, we are not born with an aptitude for citizenship.

To be a productive citizen requires much more than understanding the separation of powers or the Bill of Rights. It includes actively participating in our democracy.  If we are to facilitate this for our students, then we will have to help them develop a sense of civic purpose.  Giving attention to events in American history that have extended liberty and equality will help do this.  Requiring service learning from our students is another way to promote this purpose.  As we look ahead to how we will meet our mission, it may be necessary to make some changes to our graduation requirements so that we can develop productive, responsible citizens.  How would we measure whether our graduates are good citizens?  Let’s begin with counting the number of graduates at the ballot box.  A majority of graduates voting would be a start.

 

Post to Twitter

Posted in Schools and Assessment | Leave a comment

Raising Standards Is Not the Big Piece of The Puzzle

By Steve Atwater | Published: April 9, 2012

On Sunday afternoon I watched the final hour of the Masters Golf Tournament.  Besides being an exciting competition, it was interesting to watch several of the commercials that focused on the apparent sorry state of US education.  The ads pointed to the country’s poor performance on international tests as the reason why we need to raise our standards.  While raising the bar with higher standards is a part of the improvement equation, it is not, as the ads suggest, the bottom line to a school’s improvement efforts.  I write this because a portion of our students do just fine with the standards that we now follow; they are successfully competing with the best and brightest.

To get all students to a point where they can better compete with the world’s students will require that we establish a highly reliable school district that does not let students fail.  Too often we create a set of high expectations for a select group of students while dropping the bar to a lower level for others. (Please note that this level of expectation is set by both the home and the school.)  Contributing to the lower expectations is our practice of accepting low performance as adequate. A student can earn a D or an A and the result is the same, they pass the task at hand.  Because of the variance in expectations that exists upon reaching high school, some students are essentially not in the running for the upper academic classes.   To undo the culture of low expectations (for some) will require that we rethink what we accept as satisfactory before a student is allowed to advance.  I feel that this needs to happen right away in primary school and has to be embraced by the home.  The current practice of accepting a poor performance by a student and then moving him on to what is next is the real issue with students not having more success on international tests.  The TV ads that call for higher standards are not misguided- new standards will help us improve.  Not accepting poor performance as sufficient to pass, however, is the more pressing needed change.

Post to Twitter

Posted in Schools and Assessment | 1 Comment

Student Test Scores and Teacher Effectiveness

By Steve Atwater | Published: April 2, 2012

This week our students in grades 3-10 will take the state’s Standards Based Assessment in reading, writing and math.  Next week those students in grade 4, 8, and 10 will take the science portion of this exam.  Little do the students know that their performance on the tests may soon be viewed as a way to determine their teacher’s effectiveness.   While there is nothing wrong with tying a teacher to his or her students’ performance on standardized tests, I feel that it is a mistake to assume that these scores are the definitive measure of a teacher’s worth.

For the past several years, many in education have struggled with how to determine teacher effectiveness.  The simple way to do this is to compare student test scores from year to year (this is called a Value-added model, VAM) and attribute a gain or loss in scores to the teacher.   The VAM assumes that other factors that affect student performance on tests e.g., prior teachers, peer culture and home support are negligible.   Anyone who works with students knows that this is not the case.  A better way to determine teacher effectiveness is to use an evaluation system that is based on standards that are supported by research on effective teaching.  In sum, the VAM measures tied to a teacher should not outweigh a teacher’s evaluation when making a high stakes, individual level decision.  I am pleased that KPBSD’s new teacher evaluation system allows us to avoid using the simplistic VAM approach toward determining  teacher effectiveness.

Post to Twitter

Posted in Schools and Assessment | 2 Comments

Public Schools and Open Enrollment

By Steve Atwater | Published: March 23, 2012

A couple of weeks ago I was asked why the cost per student at a local private school is less  than it is at a public school.  There are a myriad of reasons for this difference, most notable is that a public school has an open enrollment policy.  As you know, our neighborhood public schools are required by law to pretty much enroll whoever shows up at the front door.  Earlier this week I was reminded of how important open enrollment can be when I attended a talk on autism.  The speakers, a father and a son, described the son’s autism journey and inadvertently made one of the more compelling cases for why our public schools are such a critical part of our society.  While a large part of the talk was devoted to explaining the nuances of the disability; the takeaway for me, was that the son’s ability to overcome much of autism’s limitations would not have been possible without the option to attend a public school. The boy’s local elementary school, guided by federal law and solid personnel, did what it was supposed to do for the then young autistic student. The school undoubtedly devoted a disproportionate amount of its resources to the boy and from what I can tell, it worked.  With the help of the school’s devoted staff, the boy emerged from the trappings of his autism to realize a fulfilling life that includes a college degree.

If public education is to be the great leveler of our society, then it is critical that we devote sufficient resources to public schools so that they can meet the needs of all of society’s students.  Diverting state money from public schools with open enrollments to those with selective enrollments while appealing on the surface, may ultimately work against our neediest students. On the Kenai we have hundreds of special needs students who benefit from their interactions with the general education population.  As the young man with autism can attest, a big part of his success later in life was due to the accepting and accommodating public school.  Let’s make sure that we do not inadvertently undermine this positive piece of the fabric of our society.

Post to Twitter

Posted in Schools and Assessment | Leave a comment

Opposite Operating Modes

By Steve Atwater | Published: March 16, 2012

Earlier this week the Anchorage School District (ASD) announced that it is adopting the Common Core Standards.  From what I read, the motivation to make this adoption is based on the understanding that the Core is more rigorous than Alaska’s standards and because it will provide ASD with the ability to compare itself with similar size districts that are also basing their instruction on the Core.  Is this a good move?  Certainly.  Is it enough of a move to take a big step up the improvement ladder?  Probably not, but it is a start. 

When you look at the highest performing school districts, you will find that they adhere to what Bellamy (2011) describes as the traits of High Reliability Organizations (HRO).  Bellamy writes that an HRO achieves reliability through four distinctive accomplishments

  1. Sustaining commitment to a dual bottom line-the ability to work in two modes, one standardized and centrally controlled, the other decentralized, improvisational and situation specific.
  2. Centralized procedural control and standardization- the non-negotiable content standards that we follow are an example of this.
  3. Flexibility for situational improvisation-an example of this is our collaboration among teachers that addresses what’s most needed at the classroom or school level.
  4. Combining opposite operating modes- a recognition that it is important to take advantage of both tightly standardized operations and local flexibility.

Here on the Kenai we are striving to meet the four accomplishments.  I am sure that ASD will do the same.  The challenge of finding the right balance between the opposite operating modes is one that takes time and trust.  This is why our work with collaboration is so important.  I commend ASD for taking the bold step of adopting the Core.  Research suggests however, that by itself, this move will not have the intended effect.

Bellamy, G.T., (2011).  High reliability and leadership for educational change.  In McRel Noteworthy perspectives: high reliability organizations in education (pp. 24-36).  Denver, CO: McRel

Post to Twitter

Posted in Schools and Assessment | Leave a comment

NCLB waiver is not a cure

By Steve Atwater | Published: March 10, 2012

When No Child Left Behind first went into effect, many in the education community immediately complained that the Act’s provisions were misguided.  Today, with NCLB more than ten years old, it has become almost fashionable to eschew the pejorative components of the Act.  The accountability portion of NCLB that currently sets a bar for achievement is the source of the Act’s greatest criticism.  The federal Department of Education has heard these cries and is now offering states the option of pursuing a waiver from some of NCLB’s most stringent requirements. While I agree that the waiver will be a positive step for schools, I doubt that the waiver’s qualifiers will magically cause schools to flourish.  It is important to note that a waiver will not eliminate using standardized tests as a way to measure a school’s effectiveness.  But instead of a using a benchmark that all students have to meet, the state will use student growth from year to year on the tests to determine whether a school is making progress. 

I support accountability, but struggle with the idea that you can determine a school’s effectiveness on three days of tests in April.  These tests are good indicators of student learning, they are not however, the bottom line on determining whether our students are making the grade.  Everyone agrees that we must prepare our students for the future by teaching next generation skills.  It is ironic then, that our students are not being formally assessed in these areas.  At some point NCLB will be reauthorized with a new set of provisions.  It is important that our Senators Murkowski and Begich and Representative Young not waste the opportunity  to help the Act do what it was intended to do in the first place, promote school improvement.  The three days in April should only be a part of the accountability equation.

Post to Twitter

Posted in Schools and Assessment | Leave a comment

Long Term Financial Commitment

By Steve Atwater | Published: March 5, 2012

Greetings from Juneau, I am here to meet with legislators.

The purpose of my meetings is to share that what we are doing as a district is good, and that if we are to maintain our positive results, then we will need the state to commit to forward funding as a way to meet the rising cost of running a quality school district. This is easier said than done. While it is easy to share our improving test scores and other metrics of performance, it is now more and more difficult to convince legislators of the value of education. There is a general sentiment (by some) that more investment in our students will not result in favorable returns.  As we all know, when you value something you are willing to pay for it. It appears however, that many have reached a point where their appreciation for what is going on in our schools has stalled.

While it is relatively easy for the state to add money to meet rising operational costs such as transportation, it is increasingly difficult for our lawmakers to add money that will go to our classrooms. There is a lot of talk of the need for schools to better prepare our students for the changing world. The way to do this is for a district to hire the right people and have a continuous improvement system that ensures that each student receives quality instruction. A coordinated, systematic, and collective effort is necessary. In short, a long term effort is needed for sustained improvement. This can best be accomplished by a long term commitment of financial support. Alaska’s students deserve this.

Post to Twitter

Posted in Schools and Assessment | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Knowing the variables and planning

By Steve Atwater | Published: February 10, 2012

A long time ago, on the second day of my teacher preparation program, I was asked to teach a ten minute lesson.  The lesson could be about anything and was to be video taped. As you might expect, the ordeal was a bit nerve wracking.  With no prior teaching experience I chose to teach how to distinguish among the five different types of salmon. Before the lesson started, I felt that my planning was good.  But after two minutes of teaching, I recognized that my planning was in fact, terrible.  There was no way to accomplish what I wanted to in the short time period.  Fortunately, the UAF prof only smiled when the ten minutes ended- she should have fallen over laughing-it was that bad.  Planning is of course best done when there is a good sense of the variables that affect the success of the plan.  In my case, I had no experience and naively bit off way more than I could chew. 

Planning improvement efforts for a school district is fraught with unknowns.  The mentioned variables are many and often just show up without prior notice.  One of the main variables that affects district level planning is funding.  Without knowing our level of funding we are hesitant to initiate a plan or increase a level of service.  While everyone wants our students to have the very best, it appears that few recognize the need to commit a funding level to schools well in advance of the coming year.  This is why the three-year funding plan that is a part of SB 171 is so important to KPBSD.  Although the increase in funds that are a part of SB171 will not fully offset our pending deficit, it will let us know what to expect when preparing future years’ budgets, and hence, allow us to plan.  The link below takes you to a letter sent to Senator Davis on this bill.  By the way, if you’ve been around salmon for a while you can distinguish the species by looking at the eye.

http://bit.ly/SB171Letter

Post to Twitter

Posted in Schools and Assessment | 1 Comment

The how and the what of teaching

By Steve Atwater | Published: February 3, 2012

My application and interview process for the Anchorage School District Superintendent position offered me a good chance to describe the steps that our district is taking to increase student achievement. During the ASD process I shared the changes we have made in the past three years to improve our students’ learning experience; I was proud to note that the changes are making a difference. At the core of these are our new evaluation and curriculum development processes. On the curriculum side, our new guidelines for what is taught are non-negotiable. And while this requirement may seem obvious, in the past this wasn’t always the case. I know that mandating that teachers teach what is in the district’s curriculum causes some to flinch and to react by stating that we are diminishing instructional autonomy. This raises an important question of how much autonomy should a district have over instruction.

The reason we moved to tighten the learning experience for our students was based on the recognition that there was a wide variance in what was getting taught. For example, it was found that key concepts in the sixth grade curriculum were not being taught to all sixth graders. This resulting curriculum gap would inevitably articulate itself in middle school or high school leaving the student at a disadvantage. What the district is not attempting to control, is the art of teaching the content. Teachers are still free to respond to their students’ learning needs as they see fit. When trying to establish a system that offers a consistency in performance, the what, is non-negotiable, the how however, is why teachers are professionals.

Post to Twitter

Posted in Schools and Assessment | Leave a comment

A school vision will help motivate

By Steve Atwater | Published: January 23, 2012

One of my expectations for our principals is that they are forward thinking and will work to create a vision that includes a school identity that makes their building unique.  There is ample evidence to support the benefit of a school vision; unfortunately, realizing a vision is easier said than done.  With so much time devoted to managing the building, it is often difficult for a principal to work to meet the goals of a vision, much less get all of the staff to work toward it.   The unfortunate side of this expectation is that devoting too much time to developing and implementing a vision can lead to a mismanaged school.  How then, does a principal both manage and lead a school?

The answer is relatively simple; a principal does not let the management of the school consume their daily activity.  Despite the unforeseen events such as a student with a knife, much of what occurs at school is repetitive and needs a standardized response or process.  The responses to behaviors and situations must be practiced by all the staff so as to avoid devoting unnecessary time to a student that is for example, sent to the office.  The intent of these processes is not to dehumanize school, but rather to free up time to make it more human.  A school’s staff will be motivated if it knows that they are working toward a vision that will help their students succeed.  Without this, the motivation to excel must come from within.  When it is 20 below and dark in January, this motivation can be difficult to find.

Post to Twitter

Posted in Schools and Assessment | Leave a comment