Kids Don’t Need Facts. They Can Google That Stuff Later…

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

 

It was the year 2008. I got my first “smartphone” (a Samsung). I couldn’t believe I (and everyone else with a smartphone for that matter) had the internet (and social media) at my fingertips! What a momentous occasion! Around the same time, I also started substitute teaching. In 2007, I graduated from ISU with a degree in Communication. I didn’t like where I was working or what I was doing (a marketing job in the city). So, I started subbing to make extra money and ended up LOVING it. 

When I got my own classroom, technology and phones were even smarter (and more affordable)! My students started getting their own smartphones (most of the time, their phones were better and smarter than mine!). Educators began contemplating how to incorporate smartphones into the classroom/learning. In addition to the 1-1 initiatives some districts were implementing, educators embraced a more financially friendly trend: Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). If districts/schools allowed it, students used their own devices for learning and research purposes while in class.

This trend was the impetus for a new and popular idea for learning: “Kids don’t need to know facts/dates/names/etc. They can just google that stuff later.” For many educators, this idea just made sense. Some saw this as a way to maximize learning efficiency in their classrooms, “We don’t have to spend time on fluffy facts. We can focus on teaching skills. Then, kids can apply those skills in all content areas across the board.” However, this idea was NOT backed by research. But, like other popular education theories not backed by evidence or research, it felt good. It felt freeing. It felt logical. It felt like educators could leave out fluffy facts and focus on skills.   

Today, during my morning commute, I listened to a podcast on Natalie Wexler’s book, Beyond the Science of Reading. During the episode, Wexler obviously talked about the science of reading. But, she also talked about the science of learning and how writing connects to both the science of reading and the science of learning. She also talked about some common misconceptions regarding learning and what the evidence really says (I’ve added some for emphasis):

  • Kids don’t need facts because they have Google: Actually, kids desperately need facts and knowledge. The more factual information and prior knowledge students have stored in long-term memory, the more efficiently and effectively they can learn new things. 
  • Kids just need skills: Actually, 1.) skills aren’t always as easily transferable from one domain to another  2.) skills like critical thinking depend heavily on a person’s prior knowledge in a subject. Both ED Hirsch and Natalie Wexler talk about how critical thinking cannot be taught effectively without first ensuring that students possess sufficient background knowledge. 
  • Writing in for reading and for learning: When it comes to reading, I always say, “If students are reading about it, they should be writing about it.” When it comes to learning and cognition, when we write, we are actively retrieving information we have stored in long-term memory and then putting it into our own words. Super powerful stuff! 
  • Equity: Most educators know that students from disadvantaged backgrounds come to us with far less experiences and knowledge than their peers in wealthier settings. In fact, research suggests that students from low-income families hear approximately 4 to 30 million fewer words than their peers from higher-income families. Same applies to facts and other knowledge. Leveling the playing field requires that families and schools create environments that promote meaningful conversations and language interactions with young children. 
  • Technology in learning: Technology is a POWERFUL tool (AI is evolving and changing the way we do things every single day. I used AI to generate the image for this blog). Students should use technology in school. But, as educators, we have to help them use it the right way. Students MUST engage in the arduous writing process in order to reap the learning benefits associated with writing. 

Any other common learning misconceptions come to mind? Let me now! 

Developmentally Appropriate: Is This Phrase Hurting American Education?

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

Have you ever heard the phrase “developmentally appropriate” or its inverse, “developmentally inappropriate?” In the world of education, there are lots of phrases and acronyms that non-educators don’t understand (even people within the field don’t understand them all). In my experience, “Developmentally Appropriate” and its inverse are most often used to rationalize NOT teaching or exposing a student to certain content or skills. Most of the time, I hear it uttered with such authority that it shuts down an entire conversation. But, every time I hear it, I have some serious questions regarding its credibility/use:

  • Why do you think this skill or content is developmentally inappropriate?
  • How do you know this particular skill or content isn’t developmentally appropriate? Did you study it?
  • What scholarly and peer-reviewed evidence do you have to show it’s not developmentally appropriate?
  • Who told you this particular skill or content isn’t developmentally appropriate?

It goes on and on. As it turns out, I’m not the only one with these questions. I’m currently reading E.D. Hirsch’s 2020 book, How to Educate a Citizen: The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation. In it, Hirsch goes beyond simply wondering and posits, “That phrase, developmentally appropriate practice, pronounced authoritatively, has been a dangerous hindrance to American excellence in education.” Hirsch went on to say that many use the phrase “developmentally inappropriate” to refer to anything seemingly difficult or arduous for a child. He linked its use to the science of reading and how explicit phonics instruction was once deemed “developmentally inappropriate” and “boring.” However, as modern reading research shows, regardless of how seemingly arduous something like explicit phonics instruction may be, it’s essential for developing good readers. Reading this affirmed my wonderings. Hirsch later explained the origins of the phrase “developmentally appropriate” and why we ALL should wonder about its use.

Jean Piaget (1896-1980), a Swiss psychologist known for his work in cognitive development, theorized that children’s thinking evolves through four distinct stages, each stage coinciding with a child’s biological maturation: sensorimotor (birth to age 2), preoperational (age 2 to 7), concrete operational (age 7 to 11), and formal operational (11 years and up). According to Piaget, as children interact with their environments, they go through these very specific and age-related stages of development. Piaget’s work influenced major educational movements and reforms, such as “child-centered learning,” “constructivism,” and “developmentally appropriate instruction.”

Fortunately, as cognitive science evolves and technology used to explore and map the brain advances, a plethora of Piaget’s methods and findings have been refuted. For example, Piaget drew many of his conclusions from an extraordinarily limited sample size, which often included his own children. This raises questions about the generalizability of his findings. What’s more, new evidence suggests that Piaget overemphasized distinct, sequential stages of cognitive development. Brain research shows that cognitive development is actually more fluid and continuous, and children exhibit abilities from multiple stages simultaneously. Finally, Piaget’s findings emphasized universal stages of development that were largely independent of social and cultural factors. However, contemporary research (and what most educators probably already know) suggests that cognitive development is significantly influenced by social interactions and cultural practices.

This raises an important question: If much of Piaget’s work has been challenged or refuted, why do some still use the phrase “developmentally appropriate” as a justification for limiting what students are exposed to? I prefer to think that students are far more capable than we assume, especially when given the right supports. When we default to labeling something as “developmentally inappropriate,” we may unintentionally place limits on learning and restrict access to rich, meaningful content that could help students grow beyond our expectations.

This reminds me of a powerful moment from the classic film Field of Dreams, when the mysterious voice whispers, “If you build it, they will come.” Despite uncertainty, Costner’s character takes a leap of faith, believing that if he creates the right conditions, something remarkable will happen. I believe the same applies to education: “If you teach it, they will learn.” When we raise our expectations and provide rigorous, engaging instruction, students will rise to the challenge. But first, we must believe in their potential and reject limiting assumptions about what they can’t do.

One instructional approach that embraces this philosophy is called “teaching up”, a strategy championed by Carol Ann Tomlinson. Teaching up challenges the idea of differentiating instruction down to meet perceived limitations. Instead, it advocates for designing rich, high-level learning experiences and then scaffolding appropriately so that all students—regardless of background, ability, or previous knowledge—have access to complex, meaningful content. By maintaining high expectations and adjusting supports as needed, teaching up ensures that students are stretched intellectually, rather than being held back by arbitrary notions of readiness.

Obviously, we’re not teaching AP statistics or multivariable calculus to Kindergarteners. Clearly, there’s good reason we don’t teach advanced level math to 6 year olds. But, we do need to be cautious about how we use the phrase “developmentally appropriate” (and its inverse). Rather than using it as a barrier to justify why students can’t engage with certain content or skills, we should approach it as a framework for how we support students in accessing rigorous learning opportunities. If we build high-quality instruction with the right scaffolds, students will not only come—they will thrive.

Tying Teacher Evaluation to Student Test Scores: The Ongoing Debate

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

Interestingly, fewer states are including student test scores in their teacher evaluation calculations. As of October 2019, 34 states will use student test scores while calculating teacher effectiveness, compared to 43 states in 2015 (read more here).

In addition to reading the aforementioned article, I recently engaged in a conversation with an advocate of using student test scores to calculate teacher effectiveness. I’m always amused when people say that educators need to be held accountable in similar ways to other professions (ie. The business world). These advocates want some means of measuring teacher effectiveness (as do we all), and equate students to “products” that are churned out at the end of the year. Obviously, we know that human beings are not “products” churned out on a factory belt. But, I’m always perplexed by these proponents. What I find most perplexing is that, the grand majority of the time, people touting/proposing/enacting these kinds of proposals:

    Are not teachers
    Have never been teachers
    Have no experience in PUBLIC education
    Have NO certification in education
    Run some kind of educational “philanthropy”
    See improving education as their “crusade”

I’m no statistician, but neither are many advocates for these types of reforms. I don’t understand how any teacher evaluation system could accurately account for all the variables that vastly impact student achievement (over which educators have MINIMAL TO ZERO control), including but not limited to (just to name a few of the big ones):

  • Poverty
  • Hunger
  • Homelessness
  • Family Mobility
  • Single-Parent Households
  • Parents’ Academic History/Ability
  • Diet
  • Physical Activity/Physical Health
  • Mental Health

I’ve heard that professors at prestigious universities have been trying to quantify and control for these almost uncontrollable variables since the release of “A Nation At Risk” in 1983 (with minimal to no success). I’ve read about researchers developing ridiculous formulas to try and control for outside-of-school factors and then incorporating these formulas into teacher evaluation along with student performance. In terms of actually improving student achievement by tying student achievement to teacher evaluation, the data are inconclusive. Of course, I contend that the reason for this is that these types of evaluation systems do nothing to address the underlying symptoms of student academic performance, or lack there of. “Efforts to improve educational outcomes in schools, attempting to drive change through test-based accountability, are unlikely to succeed unless accompanied by policies to address the out-of-school factors that negatively affect large numbers of our nations’ students” (Berliner, 2015).

Don’t misunderstand me….

• Students should ALWAYS be showing growth

• Teacher evaluation should encompass some type of measurable/quantified measure

I’m NOT saying that because of the issues mentioned above, we should not hold educators accountable. I’m NOT saying that we as educators can’t do things in order to ameliorate some of these underlying issues. THAT’S NOT WHAT I’M SAYING AT ALL. In fact, much research exists that posits, yes, these out-of-school factors exist, but here are things we can do in our classrooms to help. I am saying that teacher evaluation systems that include student performance as a measure of teacher effectiveness will always be seriously flawed.

I’m interested to see how this trend continues. Clearly, the government plays a major role in these types of educational reform initiatives. Thus, I would say that, unfortunately, future evaluation changes will be the result of a continuously changing and volatile political climate.

Like/comment/share!

October House Day Success!

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

If you don’t know, we’re in the process of implementing a House System at my elementary school (read for more info). We plan to host a House Activity Day once a month. Last Wednesday, we hosted our October House Day.

During the time allotted for our House Activity Day, students and staff in each House created a banner that displayed their House animal and House color. Students and staff personalized the banners by putting their painted hand prints on them. The banners look incredible! Even our superintendent came by and made his mark on each House Banner!

Yet, the thing I noticed most about this exciting day = how palpable the energy was in the gym as I began to introduce the day and lay out our expectations for the activity. It was incredible! Seeing all students sitting together with their Houses, wearing their House colors, doing their House chants… it was riveting! As soon as I walked into the gym, I got goosebumps! They were pumped to be with their Houses, and excited about creating their House Banners! The pride and excitement on their faces was contagious. I loved it!

Since Wednesday, I’ve been reflecting on this experience, and can only imagine how it’s been for our students. I’ve had parents calling me about how they and their children love this new initiative! During arrival/dismissal, I’ve had parents and/or guardians running up to me gushing about the Houses, the animals, and the colors! Teachers and staff have talked to me about how they’re so excited to come to work on House Days because of the reaction they see in their students! At the end of the year, I plan to interview and film students regarding their experiences with the House System, and collect any suggestions they may have for improvements.

So far, it’s been an incredible experience, especially for our kids! I can’t wait to continue with this endeavor!

Grading: Learning What Not To Do From My Own Experiences

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

I learned a lot about grading during the 2016-2017 school year. I read a few books. I attended a few workshops/presentations. I got to meet and speak with (at length) prominent grading gurus in the field. However, now that I think about it, I’m not sure I needed to read the books/papers/journal articles/blog posts, attend the presentations, or engage in dialogue with the gurus to see a fundamental flaw in many of our grading practices (though, all of this most certainly helped raise my awareness concerning the issue). All I truly had to do was reflect on my personal experiences with grading, both as a student and as a teacher.

As a young student, I received extra credit points for bringing in school supplies. I received deductions for late work (which, if we think about it logically, these point deductions don’t reflect a lack of academic ability, but a failure to observe the punctuality standards set by the teacher). My grades were penalized for my excessive talking (probably not hard to believe, but I LOVE talking). Clearly, these grading practices focused more on behavioral assimilation rather than actual learning. Just as unfortunate (I hate to admit it), I also engaged in some of these practices as a teacher. Not a shining moment in my career as an educator. However, I have to give myself some credit. I’m happy that at least I can admit these faults. At least I’m willing to reflect on my mistakes and strive for improvement. That’s not the case with some educators, especially in the realm of post secondary education (at least from my experience).

My worst experience with grading came in graduate school in my School Finance class. The monetary incentive (paying my own school tuition) probably contributed to my disdain for this class, the professor (let’s call him “Professor John”), his grading practices, and the outcome. Professor John mentioned many times (verbally) that if we (his students) positively completed his evaluation at the culmination of the class, he would “help us out with our final grade.” Alfie Kohn would probably refer to this behavior as “bribing.” Often times, teachers/professors engage in bribes in order to achieve compliance (some researchers go as far as saying that all grades are bribes). As luck would have it, I was on vacation while the course evaluation opened, and did not submit my evaluation for the class. As I received no less than an A+ on every assignment throughout the eight-week class, I wasn’t worried and was fairly certain that I would receive no less than an A for my final grade. When I received my grade for the class, I was shocked. I “earned” a B+ in the class (my obsession with grades is probably a good indicator that I experienced flawed grading practices). I couldn’t believe it.

I tried to communicate my concern with Professor John. Conveniently, he was also on vacation. I don’t like jumping the chain of command, but I brought my concern to the department chair’s attention. He was rigid and contemptuous. The department chair stated these types of cases were always resolved in favor of their professors and that their professors were beyond reproach. I was disgusted. I kept thinking, while upholding Professor John’s decision about my grade, it was quite obvious that the university was not only invalidating my concern, but also perpetuating bad grading practices (considering they knew that it was going on and did nothing about it). I doubt they’ve done anything to improve.

Though this was five years ago now, this experience was an extremely valuable lesson for me. We all must be willing to reflect on our mistakes and take steps towards improvement. While reflecting on my grading experiences as a student and as an educator, I have a better contextual standing on which to pivot. I will not perpetuate poor grading practices (or other flawed educational practices). None of us are beyond reproach.

Just an update… What’s equally frightening is that Professor John is a high-ranking elementary school administrator in the south suburbs, and is still actively employed as a professor by the university. Truly unfortunate…

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!

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!

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!