Organizational Distractors and Rebalancing the Instructional Core

1. Organizational Distractors and Rebalancing the Instructional Core Philip Streifer, Superintendent, Bristol Public Schools, CT – Retired; NWEA Board of Directors; www.EDvisualize.com Barry Sheckley, Emeritus Professor of Education, University of Connecticut

2. Presentation Materials • www.EDvisualize.com

3. Problem/Discussion: • What keeps you from implementing creative and innovative solutions to instructional problems that are not part of your prescribed school program?

4. Participant Discussion

5. Learning Outcomes • Organizational distractors can sabotage even the best-planned intervention • Participants will learn to identify potential distractors that interfere with systems coherence. • Students' abilities to use self-regulated learning (SRL) strategiesis often an ignored component of the instructional core • Participants will learn how to rebalance the instructional core by helping teachers promote students’ use of SRL strategies

6. The Instructional Core Operationalized Agenda • The Instructional Core and Impact of Organizational Distractors • Organization/Political Factors • The Testing Debate & Growing Rebellion: Need to Use Research to Guide Decision and Policy Making • The Proper and Ethical Use of Achievement Test Results – It’s All About Proper Inferences • Need for Assessment Literacy • The Missing Component of the Instructional Core Needed for Success (student to teacher)

7. The Real Work – Harvard PELP Model Coherence Framework & The Instructional Core

8. The Work Is Developmental…

9. Distractors • External Political Forces and Conditions • Intra Board Conflict • Board -- Superintendent Conflict • Internal Pressures and Requirements • Administration not focused on instructional core • Excessive paperwork and reporting requirements • Financial Exigencies • Proper Use of Achievement Tests • Teacher Evaluation • Principal Evaluation • School Evaluation • NCLB/AYP Targets • The Preparation Gap and Instructional Time

10. “Schools that Learn”, View 1. Peter Senge: Schools that Learn (2000)

11. Schools that learn, View II

12. Schools that learn, View III Curriculum Standards Curriculum Guides Student Progress Reports Standardized Exams Parent’s Concerns Student History & Profile State Mastery Tests Professional Organizations IEPs

13. Why the Straitjacket? Straitjacket: How Overregulation Stifles Creativity and Innovation in Education. George Goens & Phil Streifer,Roman & Littlefield, October 2013 Encroaching Federal Role/Influence/Control “Education” is Not in the Federal Constitution Before 1979, the US Department of Education was NOT a cabinet level position 1983 A Nation At Risk & The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud and the Attack on America’s Public Schools. 1995 – David Berliner and Bruce Biddle Goals 2000 – Largely a Failure NCLB/AYP: Collateral Damage: How High Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools. 2007. Sharon Nichols and David Berliner

14. Why the Straitjacket? - Con’t • The Truth About Testing: An Educator’s Call to Action 2001. James Popham • Impact of the Preparation Gap – Streifer & Goens • NAEP 2012 – America’s Report Card – Poverty Matters • Relationship between poverty and achievement • Private/Independent schools do better (wealthier and freer) • Suburban schools do better than urbans (wealthier) • Charters are a form of deregulated public schools BOTTOM LINE: Policy would be much more effective if policy-makers followed the research, rather than political ideology

15. Recommendations • Deregulate to the greatest extent possible • Scale back the role of the US Department of Education • Assessment Literacy training for all policy makers and educators • Use tests only for which they were designed – proper inferences • Schools need a political buffer. Minimize the impact of organizational distractors to the greatest extent possible on principals, teachers and schools • Provide adequate resources to close the preparation gap – increase instructional time • Focus all efforts on the instructional core, particularly the role between student and teacher • Use Research! Straitjacket: How Overregulation Stifles Creativity and Innovation in Education. George Goens & Phil Streifer,Roman & Littlefield, October 2013

16. Efforts to Rebalance the Instructional Core THROUGHDistractors TOJune FROMSeptember

17. Why We Choose SRL Strategies as Our Focus Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring Writing Revision Skill: Shifting from Process to Outcome Self-Regulatory Goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 241-250. Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B., & Keating, T. (2006). Training physical education students to self-regulate during basketball free throw practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(2251-262).

18. Phase 1: September – JanuaryHow are students using SRL strategies in their learning?

19. Phase 1 NAME________________ • PLAN • What is the learning task I face in this class? • What is the best plan for me to use to complete this task? • MONITOR • How well am I following my plan? + (very well);< (following it somewhat);− (not really following it) • How is it working? + (working well); < (working somewhat); − (not working) • EVALUATE • How well did my plan work today? + (worked well); < (worked somewhat); − (did not work) • How can I adapt my plan to learn better in my next class?   • SUMMARY • What’s the learning task?Do what teacher says to do (58%)Get a good grade (32%) • How to be a “better learner?”Focus, Pay attention, Don’t fool around (87%) • How to learn better?Concentrate, pay attention, focus (66%)Continue doing what I’m doing (16%) • Self-Analysis • Following my plan (92%) • Plan is working well (91%) • Plan worked well today (94%) N = 1071 responses

20. Phase 1 (cont.) N = 338responses Increasing use of SRL strategies Examples: Level 1: Focus, Pay attention, Don’t talk, Level 2: Get good grade, Work harder, Check my work Level 3: Use strong verbs, Write a summary, Elaborate on key ideas Level 4: Think about what I am learning and try to learn more Strategy listed most frequently: “Get a good grade” (20% of all responses)

21. Phase 2: February – May What results can be achieved when students use SRL strategies?

22. Phase 2 SRL and Increases in Math Grades High SRL involvement Low SRL involvement

23. Phase 2 (cont.) SRL and Increases in LA Grades Low SRL involvement High SRL involvement

24. Phase 2 (cont.) SRL and Improving Self-Assessments • Student-teacher assessment with rubric developed by teacher • Student-teacher assessments on writing projects using rubric developed by teacher. Same rubric for both assignments. • Student-teacher assessments with high SRL involvement. • Student-teacher assessments with rubric developedby teacher. The small difference between teachersand students on projectssuggests that involving students in SRL activities leads to a shared understanding of the assessment standards

25. SRL and Improvements in Approaches to Learning N = 74 Note increase in SRL strategy from December to June

26. EOY Differences between Two Teams N = 146 Faculty on Team 1 worked through distractors (e.g., State mandates; Faculty on Team 2 did not

27. Team 1 Teachers’ Perspectives We definitely plan to incorporate students’ use of SRL strategies into our lessons next year • Building students’ SRL skills is well worth the effort • Improving grades, accurate self-assessment, shift in mindset • Students are more involved in their learning • Students ask more in-depth questions during lessons • Parents endorse the emphasis on SRL • Best to weave SRL as a priority into all lessons • Building students’ understanding of SRL takes time • Multiple approaches required • Engage students in SRL cycle: Reflect on past work, use reflection to set goals, develop rubrics to assess their work, repeat cycle • Best if entire instructional team involved • Communicates importance of SRL to students, consistently

28. A Few Thoughts • Note the long start-up time in Phase 1 • Teachers struggled with integrating SRL with other priorities even though they viewed SRL as more beneficial to students • Teachers had a hard time “letting go” of old habits • Teacher-Leaders were the most important factor • School leaders supported efforts of teacher-leaders by widening the corridor for experimentation, creativity and innovation • The differences between Team 1 and Team 2 were related to the work of Teacher-Leaders on Team 1

29. Summary • Barry’s work shows teaching can be more effective by focusing on student self-regulation. • Teachers have a hard time of “letting go” • They want to “teach” • They need to comply with programs and regulations • Phil’s experience is that administration needs to formally free teachers and principals from organizational constraints to widen their corridor for experimentation, creativity and innovation.

30. Self-Regulation:Meta-cognitive strategies “Evaluate” “Plan” “Monitor” Zimmerman, B. J. (2009). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 705-722). New York: Cambridge University Press. 30