Turns Out, Happiness is the Key (or, at Least One of Them)

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

Did you know the following benefits of happiness (Achor, HBR, 2012):

  • 56% greater sales
  • 3 times more creative
  • 31% more productive
  • 40% more likely to receive a promotion
  • 23% fewer fatigue symptoms
  • Up to 6 times more engaged
  • 39% more likely to live to age 94
  • People who are happy and positive are more productive, which results in a better ROI for companies and school districts.

I attended a 2-day Happiness Advantage workshop in Schaumburg this week.  At first, I was skeptical.  I mean,  I already knew happiness was important.  I knew being happy was a big part of success and creativity.  I knew that happiness helped fuel relationship building.  However, I didn’t know the aforementioned specific benefits of being happy.

Also, happiness is a mindset.  We must make a choice to be happy.  As obvious as that may seem, I never truly thought about happiness that way.  I thought that if I worked hard and became successful, I would be happy (almost automatically).  However, that thinking is backwards.  I must first choose to be happy, which will help my brain work better, and then potentially help me become more successful.  As the presenter mentioned, negative emotions narrow our focus towards fight-flight, whereas positive emotions broaden the amount of possibilities we process, thus, making us more creative, thoughtful, and open to new ideas (Fredrickson, 2004).

In addition, I learned that we have to be careful.  Apparently, it’s fairly simple to fall into the “darkness” or be negative (which shouldn’t be hard to believe.  Just turn on the news).  What is more, I also learned that there are specific habits that people engage in order to remain consistently happy.  During the training, I made a commitment to try at least one of these habits for 21 days.  I’m hoping this commitment will become a habit so that I can begin working on developing another one of the happiness habits.

To clarify, it’s not that I’m not a happy person.  I am happy.  There are many things that make me happy.  However, as the presenter also said (or asked), we’re not always happy at work.  He asked a poignant question: why do we always wait until retirement to be happy?  We should be focusing on ways to make work happy, so that happiness is part of our regular routine and so happiness is also shared with all the people with whom we come into contact.

I definitely plan to live by what I learned.  I was about to say, “implement what I learned.”  Yet, what we learned can’t really be implemented (in the most literal sense).  The Happiness Advantage focused on a paradigm shift/mind shift/seeing the world through different lenses (emotional lenses).  The presenter wasn’t selling a program or some type of scripted curriculum.  Being happy is within us all.  We must choose to be happy.

Let’s bring this post back to the classroom and apply it to my context as an educational leader.  I believe the rubber will truly meet the road when I’m faced with the plethora of issues that plague educational leaders (or, educators in general) on a daily basis: student misbehavior, problematic parent, having difficult conversations with teachers, etc.  When I’m faced with those challenges, I hope I can remember what I learned from the Happiness Advantage training.  I hope that I can remember my commitment to being happy, and spreading that happiness to others.

Like/Comment/Share!

What Do We Have Control Over As Educators?

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

This post is a partial continuation of my most recent post, Considering School Improvement in Underserved/Disadvantaged Areas.

I’ve had the conversation regarding school improvement (especially as it relates to underserved/disadvantaged districts) with so many educators. In fact, after my most recent post, I’ve had multiple educators in my district approach me and thank me for sharing the post and express interest in learning more. Again, I posit that there are aspects of education we can control (or have a better chance of controlling), and think it’s essential that we A) take a look at ourselves and determine if we are honestly doing the “right work” by focusing on the things we CAN control while B) simultaneously acknowledging the copious amount of outside-of-school factors that impact student learning, but not letting those factors define our solutions or plague our thinking/efforts.

This list includes a plethora of aspects in education over which we have NO/VERY MINIMAL CONTROL (not an exhaustive list):

  • Poverty and its various effects
  • Dysfunctional family home lives
  • Lack of parental involvement
  • School segregation/school district redlining/other discriminatory policies
  • Blighted/unsafe school communities and neighborhoods
  • Paucity of school funding
  • For some districts, decrepit schools and facilities
  • Formal schooling is not mandated in Illinois until first grade (6-7 years old)

These are some of the aspects in education I think we CAN CONTROL (or have the most control over) in order to help improve schools in underserved/disadvantaged areas. What am I missing? (feel free to comment!):

  • Teacher quality
  • Administrator quality
  • The support we provide our teachers and administrators
  • The type/quality of the professional development offered
  • Safe/comfortable environment for teachers/administrators to act autonomously/take risks/innovate
  • Level of collaboration between teachers and administrators
  • Building relationships/rapport/respect with the entire school community
  • Instructional practices
  • The hiring process
  • Interventions/servicing students who are experiencing difficulty
  • Curriculum
  • Student engagement
  • Culture building/developing/rebuilding
  • School branding
  • Exercising fiscal responsibility with the funds schools do receive
  • Prioritization of duties/responsibilities

Again, please Comment/Like/Share!  I’d love to know your thoughts!

Considering School Improvement in Underserved/Disadvantaged Areas

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. Actually, this has probably been a thought of mine (at times, it may have lingered in the back of my head as opposed to taking center stage), since I first started my career in education. I work (and have worked since the start of my career) in a severely disadvantaged school district. Over 80% of our students come from low-income homes. We have a 40% student mobility rate. It doesn’t help that our standardized test scores according to PARCC are not very good (which, in my opinion, is highly indicative of socioeconomic status. You can take a map of the south suburbs of Illinois, throw a dart at it, and you will more than likely hit an area that’s underperforming while serving a severely disadvantaged population). What’s even more unfortunate, there is an undeserved negative connotation associated with my district and a plethora of unfavorable perceptions regarding my current school district (and a lot of districts that serve similar populations).

This unfortunate scenario is reinforced by social scripts, which are “a series of behaviors, actions, and consequences that are expected in a particular situation or environment”(https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Social%20Scrip). In my district’s case, the social script is defined by environmental factors such as poverty, dysfunctional student home lives, high percentages of EL students, high percentages of students with special needs, etc. Districts like mine (there are many) are often expected to fail (sometimes, this expectation is even held by those whom the district employs) because of the out-of-school factors impacting our students and their learning (among other things). But, I’m trying to find a way to flip that script. We focus a lot on what we CANNOT control in education. Let’s start focusing on what we CAN control.

Elena Aguilar (2013), author of The Art of Coaching: Effective Strategies for School Transformation, describes the Coach’s Optical Refractor as an essential tool which encourages coaches to view issues/problems/situations from six different lenses. If you’d like to learn more about the Refractor, I highly recommend her book. I want to focus on the first lens, Inquiry, and how it relates to my thoughts regarding school improvement in disadvantaged areas. She states, “The way we define the problem dictates how we define the solution” (p. 50). Defining/describing improvement efforts concerning our disadvantaged schools are almost always plagued with assertions and descriptions regarding the effects of pervasive poverty, the dysfunctional family home lives of our students, the lack of resources to properly help our students learn and live productive lives, etc. I understand that those issues impact our reality. There’s no way around that. We can’t deny this reality, and we must be cognizant of how it shapes our own perceptions, beliefs, and actions.

However, I can’t help but wonder if we’re focusing on those aspects of the problem so much so that the solution (if there is one) is often (only) defined in these ways as well. I’ve heard the, “If only we had more resources,” “If only our students’ parents cared more,” “If only we had more parental involvement,” “If only the neighborhoods where are students come from were safer,” “If only our kids came to school on grade level (a good portion of our students do not come to school on grade level),” etc.

In my opinion, we may need to reframe the problem so that it doesn’t focus so much on issues outside of our control. By reframing the problem, we may also need to adjust our professional practice mirrors onto ourselves to determine what exactly we CAN do in order to positively enact change and improve learning and/or achievement for our students. Can we safely reframe the problem so that we take into consideration all the contributing factors to a student’s success, but also focus mainly on what we, as educators, can do to help ensure learning? I think so. I think it will require honest, courageous, uncomfortable conversations. But, I think it’s possible (and worth it). I also think that this type of change won’t occur until we get honest with ourselves and begin focusing on what we CAN change, as opposed to focusing on those issues over which we have no control.

Like/Comment/Share!

When I Grow Up, I Want To Be…

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger
Professional Football Player
Professional Soccer Player (“like Cristiano Ronaldo”)
Professional Video Gamer
Professional Youtuber (I wasn’t fully aware this was a thing)
Actress
Actor
Voice Actor
Growing up, I wanted to be an archaeologist, professional baseball player, professional golfer (which is ironic because I’m a terrible golfer), or a rock star.  It was so fun to have these dreams.  I’d picture myself hitting a grand slam to win the game as a professional baseball player.  I’d have daydreams of myself on stage rocking out with my guitar.  However, I was also encouraged (by my parents and teachers) to have more realistic dreams in addition to my utmost desire to be the next Eddie Van Halen.  For instance, after visiting Springfield as a junior high student, I became enthralled with politics.  I was encouraged to consider a career as a lawyer and then to enter politics.  Looking back, I’m so happy that I was encouraged to have a “Plan B Dream” in addition to my ultimate dreams.
At this point in the school year, I get to go out to all the schools within my district in order to learn more about our 6th grade students.  I get to interview 6th graders, which affords me the opportunity to get to know them so much better.  These students are amazing.  They’re smart.  They’re funny.  They’re shy.  They’re nervous.  They’re kind.  They’re caring.  Some are quiet.  Some are more talkative.  Some really like video games.  Some really like animals.  Some really like the Chicago Bulls.  But, most importantly, they’re all 6th grade kids with wide eyes and incredible dreams.  Many times, those dreams consist being a professional singer, an actor in Hollywood, a reality TV star, or a football player for the New England Patriots, just to name a few.  I’v heard students say they wanted to be every single one of those things in the list at the beginning of this post, and then some.
As educators (and parents as well), I think it’s important to embrace our students and their dreams, and to also encourage our students to have “Plan B Dreams” in addition to their ultimate dreams.  These “Plan B Dreams” tend to be a bit more realistic or like “regular jobs” as one student described.  That’s not a bad thing.  Having a backup plan is important (I may be biased because I’m a habitual planner).  Some people take issue with the phrase “Plan B Dreams” because they claim it implies that we’re discouraging students from pursuing their real dreams or that we’re “dream killers.”  If you don’t want to call it “Plan B Dreams,” fine.  Don’t.  These “regular job” dreams can go by another name.  However, I think it’s essential that kids are encouraged to have these “regular job” dreams.  Being real about future careers and opportunities is so important.  What is more, I think it’s important to help students and their parents research future jobs and understand their skills and potential.  As I got older (high school), I remember taking aptitude tests or skills tests that would help identify careers that would be a good fit for me.  The results of these tests were always so narrow.  The results almost always had to do with a public service position like a law enforcement officer or a teacher (nothing wrong with either of those professions).  That being said, it’s our job as educators to show kids and their families that there are so many other opportunities out there in this world, in addition to their ultimate dream jobs/careers and in addition to the jobs/careers that may be identified for them based on the results of some test.
We’re not dream killers.  We’re not crushing the dreams of our students.  Encouraging students to have realistic dreams in addition to their ultimate dreams is not killing their dreams or discouraging them from pursuing their ultimate dreams.  We just want to ensure that the children within our care (whether our own kids or the students in our charge) have a variety of dream jobs/careers and “Plan B Dream” jobs/careers, have the knowledge and ability to one day pursue their dreams, and understand that just because their ultimate dream job/career may not have come to fruition, that doesn’t mean they’re not or they won’t be successful in life.
Like/Comment/Share!

Calling All School Administrators: Collaborate! Deprivatize Your Practice! Share The Learning!

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

Dr. Brad Gustafson said, “If school leaders are not modeling effective collaboration, can we really expect teachers to facilitate it for students?” (2017, p. 50). Gustafson went on to say, “School leaders must model collaboration if it is to become part of a school’s culture” (2017, p. 53).

I wholeheartedly agree. I first focus on these questions as they specifically pertain to administrators and teachers (before thinking about the trickle-down effect with students). Can we really expect teachers to facilitate or engage in collaboration among THEMSELVES if we as administrators aren’t modeling it OURSELVES? I can’t help but notice some reluctance or trepidation regarding collaboration in my meetings with fellow administrators. Clearly, effective collaboration takes time, effort, commitment, and support. Therefore, apprehension concerning collaboration is most certainly understandable. Yet, purposeful reluctance or defiance regarding collaboration will only serve to harm teachers, students, and school culture.

In order for us to improve as educators (and improve schools and the field of education itself), collaboration is key. We must become comfortable with collaboration. We must become committed to collaboration. One of the most effective ways to begin this process is through dialogue with other educators. It is essential to deprivatize our practice and share our learning (and failures) with others (I completely understand that this may be difficult when systematic issues in some districts discourage failure and risk-taking, thus hindering trust, the deprivatization of professional practice, and effective collaboration). However, if as an administrator (or educator in general), you don’t personally accept the reality that collaboration is key for improving schools, you will hinder your school’s efforts towards improvement.

In my district, we’ve implemented Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) which, when done well, requires high levels of collaboration, risk-taking, and deprivatization of professional practice. We’ve had lots of bumps in the road. It has not been smooth sailing to say the least. However, we are committed to the process and the reality that, without collaborating, our schools will not improve. I can’t speak for the other administrators in my district. But, I can say that I will stay the course, as I’ve seen wonderful results regarding collaboration in our PLCs. It must be noted, PLCs are not the only avenue through which educators can collaborate. Educators from across the world have collaborated through face-to-face methods and have broken down barriers by collaborating through asynchronous means using social media. Thousands of educators have embraced technology to help build their Professional Learning Networks (PLNs). Embracing technology’s ability to tear down barriers to collaboration is a wonderful example of effective, technology-based collaboration. Teachers and administrators are constantly learning and developing (for free!) by reaching out to their PLNs.

Also, collaboration doesn’t always have to start with the school leader. I’ve read about teachers starting their own collaborative efforts (through traditional methods or by using social media) and the wonderful effects these efforts have had on the entire building. However, it is important to understand that if the school leader does not personally embrace collaboration, this will drastically harm the school’s collaborative culture and its improvement potential.

During my next administrator meeting, I will challenge/encourage my fellow colleagues to not only deprivatize their practice and share the learning, but also collaborate with school leaders inside and outside our district. I will encourage the utilization of traditional and more modern methods (such as collaboration using social media) to help our schools improve. These types of collaboration, when effectively modeled by the school leader, can lead to positive changes for teachers, and eventually have a positive impact on students.

Like/Comment/Share!

The Importance of Good Mentors

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

I just finished reading a book on being a successful school administrator. The book included anecdotal observations and experiential information from past and current educational administrators. It was unanimous. All of the administrators who provided their expertise for publication in this book said the same thing: all educators, including assistants, teachers, curriculum coaches, maintenance and janitorial staff, building level administrators, and district level administrators need good mentors.

I try to read at least two educational books a month and as many research articles I can find. I’ve scoured the internet searching for books to read that could help me in my profession. I’ve picked my colleagues’ libraries clean in search of practical books/information that can help me grow. All this searching and reading has been extremely beneficial. However, besides on the job experiences and making mistakes then learning from them, I think mentoring is probably the most propitious form of growth in my professional practice.

Many districts place heavy emphasis on the mentoring and induction of our new teachers. Yet, I know there are some districts that provide no formal mentoring for their administrators. I’ve heard how some districts assume that because someone was a successful teacher, they will be a successful administrator. I find that assumption problematic.

I’m thankful that my district invests in its administrators by providing them an opportunity to work closely with mentors. During my first year as an assistant principal, I was partnered with a retired high school principal. Because of the difference in grade level experience of my mentoring relationship, I was skeptical at first. However, even though my mentor was a previous high school administrator, much of the wisdom he shared with me has been certainly applicable. In addition to my formal experiences with a mentor, I’m thankful for a superintendent who invites all the administrators in the district to learn and grow with him. I feel that he has taken me under his wing and helped me understand things and get better at things along the way. This informal mentoring has been and continues to be just as beneficial as the formal mentoring.

Essentially, I think it’s important for districts to remember that as administrators, we need mentors, too.

Like/Share/Comment!

Teacher Quality and Practice Comes First

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

At yesterday’s district institute, we had a wonderful presenter who initiated the conversation regarding grading practices and homework. He brought the data to help support his claims. He cited relevant research that showed that homework, especially in the primary grades, often results in an effect size of zero when it comes to student learning. Yet, one of the aspects about his presentation that made it so compelling was his connection to our children and our students. We may have heard the message before, but he was particularly effective in communicating “If it’s not good enough for your own kids, why would you consider it good enough for the students you teach?” I’ve traveled to neighboring districts to see similar presentations from different presenters on grading practices and homework policies. The presentations lacked that compelling piece.

I completely see the validity in the presenter’s claims regarding homework and grading. It’s hard to argue with the majority of the evidence he presented. However, I’m not quite sure that teaching/instructing/informing teachers about proper grading practices is a step towards district improvement (or the most effective step towards improvement). For example, with homework, if a teacher looks at an assignment and determines that it’s good/quality, but in reality, the assignment is not very good and serves no purpose for student learning, I’m thinking there’s a deeper issue at hand. With this scenario, we may have an issue of teacher quality. In this instance, I do not believe that teaching/instructing/informing teachers about proper grading practices or what good homework should look like (if homework is given at all) is the first step in the process of improving the quality of that teacher. Yes, having this knowledge regarding grading practices and homework is essential. But, like I said, there may be an underlying issue that can’t be completely addressed by learning more about homework and grading.

Point being, improving teacher quality (especially from an instructional standpoint) before focusing on grading and homework policies is essential. We may be putting the cart before the horse by considering homework and grading policies before considering teacher quality.

Later, I was fortunate enough to participate in a round table discussion with the presenter. He agreed that addressing teacher practices and teacher quality before grading practices and homework policies was essential. He then clarified (which I had difficulty articulating for some reason) that with good teaching practices and improved teacher quality, grading practices and homework policies could lead to school improvement.

Overall, the presentation was fantastic. I’m simply concerned about any execution of his suggestions before improving teacher quality (and administrator quality for that matter).

Comment/like/share!

Human Cognition and Implications for the Constructivist Classroom

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

In light of Brain Awareness Week (March 13-19), I thought I would write about the brain!

With the development and increased usage of the FMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), I find myself reading more and more findings regarding human cognition and neuroscience. It has also become a major interest of mine. That being said, while analyzing study findings, I find myself in a state of excitement, discovery, and uncertainty. The more I learn about human cognition, the more I question current best practices, educational trends, teaching strategies and approaches, etc.

In the context of direct instructional guidance as it relates to human cognition, learning is defined as a change in long-term memory. Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006) posit:

The aim of all instruction is to alter long-term memory. If nothing has changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned. Any instructional recommendation that does not or cannot specify what has been changed in long-term memory, or that does not increase the efficiency with which relevant information is stored in or retrieved from long-term memory, is likely to be ineffective. (p. 77)

Based on my readings and knowledge regarding human cognition (which is admittedly limited), I find that these cognitive researchers often sound very definitive when talking about learning. However, for me, questions continually abound regarding their claims or evidence. For instance, can Kirschner et al. safely conclude that absolutely no learning has occurred if nothing has changed in long-term memory? Again, for me, that sounds very definitive.

Kirschner et al. further posit that controlled experiments almost always demonstrate that when students are dealing with novel information, they should be explicitly shown what to do and how to do it (sounds somewhat like lots of hand-holding). If they are not, students may experience an excessive cognitive load that is detrimental to learning.

As an avid and vocal proponent of project-based learning, I always get a little nervous while reading and analyzing cognitive studies that decry constructivism or constructivist teaching approaches. I’m not denying the results of these cognition studies or the plethora of literature reviews concerning human cognition that suggest that direct instructional approaches are more effective and more efficient.

However, with well-designed and well-planned project-based learning, students are provided with a real-world problem and (often) a pathway or guidelines to follow in order to solve the problem (therefore, possibly alleviating the “problem-solving search” that has been shown to deplete working memory). Well-designed PBL is highly structured and organized by skilled teachers. Students are guided through the journey as they endeavor to meet project deadlines, secure resources for their projects, practice and prepare for presentations in front of authentic audiences, and receive and reflect on critical feedback. When done well, and when students are truly engaged in these endeavors, though it may not be considered a “direct instructional approach” or “direct instructional guidance,” PBL can have profound learning impacts on students, right? I’ve seen it happen. Or, is what I’ve seen simply increased levels of engagement and excitement regarding learning activities? Is what I’ve seen simply students engaging in meaningless activities that look good, but will not transfer to long-term memory alterations? Cognitive studies often rock educational foundations. As such, these are turbulent times for me as I grapple with this information.

Human Cognition and the Case for Early Childhood Education.

Also, as we become more informed about human cognition, I can’t help but think about its implications for early childhood education. Based on what I’ve read and what researchers have found, a substantial amount of information stored in long-term memory is essential for continued and future successful learning. If this is the case, I don’t see why early-childhood education is not mandated (I’m sure most people will resort to the argument that there’s not enough funding for it). I live/work in Illinois. Students don’t have to go to school until they’re 6-7 years old (first grade). In underserved communities, it’s highly likely that if students are not attending school during those foundational years, they are not building experiences necessary to form and fill long-term memory. By the time some students come to us at 5 or 6 or 7 year olds, they may have missed a copious amount of opportunities to build their long-term memory.

 

What are your thoughts? I’d love to hear from you! Feel free to follow/share/leave a comment!

Transparency -> TRUST -> Social Capital -> the Community Allowing a Certain Degree of Risk-Taking

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

I consider myself somewhat of an innovative risk-taker when it comes to education. I love working with/along side fellow educators who challenge the status quo and break free of the traditional mold. As I expand my horizons and continue working with educators from other districts and other states, I occasionally see overwhelming levels of trepidation from educators and school officials when it comes to making changes or “rocking the boat.” In addition, some of the pushback comes from the communities in which these districts are located (which could be the reason for the trepidation on the part of the educators and school officials). In certain districts, I’ve attended informational sessions for parents regarding potential changes being made, where these sessions have turned into full-blown debates. At times, these debates have gotten so heated the educational administration has had to end the meeting in order to “cool down” and reconvene at a later time.

Many people think that because they’ve gone to school or that their kids are in/have gone to school, they’re experts in the field (example: politicians who have no teaching or administrating experience in education crafting and implementing policies). I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the assertion (or similar sounding assertions) “Back in my day…”, “I went to school during the golden age of American education…”, or “This is the way we used to do it.” Unfortunately, there never really was a golden age of American Education. As Ravitch points out, there never was a time in American education when everyone succeeded in school. American students were never very good at taking standardized tests (like the Long-Term Trend NAEP) compared to other nations. I wish more communities and policy makers would understand this or at least be aware of it.

I see the formula in the title as a way of possibly encouraging the community and education officials to allow teachers and administrators a certain degree of risk-taking. As school representatives, we must be transparent concerning our intentions, and our intentions must be aligned with what’s best for students. Transparency helps build trust with the community (schools decide how they want to go about being transparent. Will it be through an active social media presence or through more traditional channels like a newsletter?) When the community is constantly informed/aware of the amazing things going on in school, this helps build trust. A simply Google search of “social capital” reveals, “social capital is the network of social connections that exist between people, and their shared values and norms of behavior, which enable and encourage mutually advantageous social cooperation.” Again, being transparent will help build trust which then helps lead to mutually beneficial social relationships and cooperation between the school and the community. Ideally, this synergy will help parents, community members, and other stakeholders understand that innovation and change aren’t bad. Both are hard and may not always work. However, as times changes, our schools must keep up.

In the end, the formula helps demonstrate the notion that we’re here doing this job to help kids. Trust us. We want what’s best for students. We may not always get it right (especially the first time). But, that doesn’t stop us from wanting what’s best for kids. Innovation failure will not deter me from wanting what’s best for kids.

It’s No Longer A Matter Of “If”, But “When”…

I think about challenging the status quo and innovative strides in education in the context of our current reality regarding technology and automation. I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist or a doom and gloom preacher. However, being as prescient as possible, many have predicted what awaits students when they leave school in the next decade and beyond, and I can’t stop thinking about it. Some of it is scary. The notion that robots will be taking over may be somewhat farfetched. Yet, the reality is, many of the occupations we know of today will change and some will be completely automated. That being said, major shifts in the education system may be needed to prepare students to work seriously with technology. We continually hear of the push concerning the preparation of students to succeed in the 21st century, but for many, school looks a lot like it did 10, 20, 30, 40, and even 50 years ago. We can’t sit around and deny that it will happen. It’s already happening. It may take longer than some futurists predict. But, it will happen. Innovative strides in education must occur. We must remain current. I’m not advocating for teachers, administrators, or schools to abandon things we know work. However, we may need to broaden our scope when considering the notion of preparing students to survive and thrive in a world that is rapidly changing and shows no signs of slowing down.

Thoughts?  Feel free to comment/share/and follow!

Idealistic vs. Realistic Expectations Regarding Standardized Testing

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

I read an interesting blog post the other day regarding the controversial practice of using standardized test scores to determine school/teacher effectiveness and success. If you’ve read anything from Diane Ravitch, you’ve probably heard similar notions before. And, of course, whenever PISA results are released, people/schools/countries are clamoring to compare themselves. Also, for my school, PARCC testing begins next week.

I completely agree with Ravitch and other educators who suggest that there are faults within a system that puts too much emphasis on standardized measures and indicators for determining success. It’s impossible to glean all information simply from a school’s standardized test scores.

Idealistically, there’d be no standardized measures used to judge the effectiveness of teachers and schools. These tests don’t accurately demonstrate all that schools and students can do. There is so much more beyond test scores. We’ve all heard the stories about students who were bad test takers, but turn out to be successful later as lifelong learners. The success of these individuals is often attributed to skills/knowledge/abilities/etc. that can’t be measured (or aren’t measured easily). As Eisner said, “Not everything that matters can be measured, and not everything that is measured matters.” I remember reading that line and then discussing it in my doctoral coursework. It was empowering.

However, realistically, that’s not the current state of education in which we all serve. My superintendent requires deliverables. Our locally elected school board wants to see numbers, and good numbers at that (or at least numbers trending in the positive direction). When my superintendent feels the pressure to put up good numbers for the school board, he then requires the school principals to do what they must in order to achieve those numbers. The principals then work with their staff towards achieving and/or maintaining those numbers. Teachers then work with students and their parents to bring this goal to fruition. It’s like a top-down funnel that continually perpetuates the focus on standardized achievement scores.

Like many have said, this systematic change requires brave educators and change agents to step up/rise up against the system. We’ve seen some brave educators do such things, and often lose their employment as a result. We’ve seen parents and students “opt out” of standardized tests. For some parents, there were consequences for such actions. Realistically, we operate in a system that requires compliance regarding standardized achievement scores.

I’m not commenting on whether this is right or wrong. I’m just stating the truth. Yet, I do wonder what would happen if we took a different approach. Much of what I’ve read and researched proposes that the educators or parents/students within the system make the changes. I completely see the validity in that approach. I’m simply wondering if there is some way we can also educate our locally elected school board members (who serve the community) regarding the issues associated with high stakes, standardized measures of success? An approach like this may have been attempted before. If so, I’d like to learn more about it. But, what would this approach look like? Could students serve as the channels through which information regarding standardized achievement tests is shared with school board members? So many questions.

Of course, this type of adjustment on the part of the school board could have potential economic implications. These scores are used as indicators of how well a school is doing. Realtors use this information to determine if certain areas are “good” areas for homeowners. For many realtors, “the schools are good” is a major selling point. You don’t ever really hear them say, “this school is one of the most creative schools around,” or “this school’s approach to project-based learning is terrific!” Realtors aren’t educators, so it may be unrealistic to expect them to know these things. But, as the school board looks out for the best of the community, they want schools that perform well. At this point in time, performing well means obtaining high scores on standardized achievement tests. It’s a vicious cycle. Can it ever be broken or changed?