Working ON the System

Today, I have been going through past notes and materials from workshops and books over the years. It brings back memories of so many good people that I have learned from along the way. It is impossible to put into words the gratitude for the wisdom and guidance others have shared with me.

One of the items I found was an article written by David Langford entitled "Working on the System." One of his main contentions in the article is that "administrators must spend an increasing percentage of time working on the system, not in the system." This statement, in one sentence, is essentially the reason I desired to become an administrator. I saw an opportunity to work on the bigger processes that drive much of the work teachers do, and in turn much of what students experience on a daily basis.

I am reminded often to think systems. I am also reminded that the results we are getting are exactly what our systems are designed to produce. More importantly, I am reminded that these systems I talk about are made up of people. 

There are some simple facts about us. About people.

We have feelings. We have dreams. We have beliefs. We have perceptions. We have needs.

So, I want to take a minute to be clear that I wholeheartedly believe that we absolutely must address the systems within which we work. That is a critical point!

And...

I would like to be equally as clear that I do not intend to insult individuals within the system by pointing out concerns or outcomes of the system. To do so would miss the purpose of raising the concerns in the first place because it might fix blame on outliers rather than improve the process as a whole. Generally speaking, my blog is not about outliers. I feel like that would be a waste of most people's time, including mine.

I do intentionally use provocative language at times to stress the magnitude of some of the issues I write about. I will continue to do so. There has to be a sense of urgency and seriousness about our business of improving how we teach and raise and disciple the next generation, lest we fall prey to what Martin Luther King, Jr. called the "tranquilizing drug of gradualism." Some improvements require more than minor tweaks here and there to the system. I make no apologies for beating that drum.

I do, however, apologize for anything that I have said or written that gives the impression that I do not respect and admire teachers. Most teachers I know work very hard and care very much. I trust that those educators I have had the privilege to work with most directly know my heart. They know that there is, simultaneously, joy and dissatisfaction in my work at all times. 

Joy, because it is a sacred honor to be called to this kind of work. 
Dissatisfaction, because we can always do better. (Dissatisfaction, by the way, is the prerequisite to any great change that takes place, so there is no need to be scared of it.)

Our school district aims to think students first. A mentoring principal once told the audience at a leadership academy, "I tell my faculty that if there ever comes a time when there is a conflict between doing what is best for teachers and doing what is best for kids, then I will do what is best for kids."

What is best for kids is for all of us in education to continuously reflect on our practices and challenge ourselves to grow. I am the perfect example of why this is necessary. I still have a long way to go, but I am thankful that I am not the educator I was five or ten years ago. There have been countless changes to my practices over the years because of the encouragement and wisdom and honesty of those people that surround me, both those who agree and those who disagree with me. 

Thanks for helping me grow!

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 6: "A Better Way - Feedback That Feeds Forward")

It is fitting that this post is about feedback. A couple weeks ago, my wife read my posts about grades and gave me some feedback. She said, "These posts are always so depressing." Well, that happened to be timely feedback because it is time to turn the corner to the hope that a grading overhaul can bring. The solution is wrapped up in one word: FEEDBACK!

My wife, I have to be honest, was right. The first posts in this series are depressing. It is sad to see what we are guilty of doing to children in the name of giving them an education. My hope in presenting the impact of the problems is that people will see that this "disease" is very real, very harmful, and in very real need of a remedy. Without coming to that conclusion, little effort will be expended to create a new reality.

Now, it is time to focus on the actions necessary to create that new reality. This process begins with coming to a consensus around the word "accountability" by answering one question: What do we need to hold students accountable for?

The number one answer should be learning, as demonstrated by mastery. If we agree on that answer, then we need to agree that traditional grading methods are some of the worst means of measuring accountability (for all the reasons mentioned in my previous posts). A new, simpler method is to plainly show what a student knows compared to the standard of what the student is expected to know.

With that established as the objective worth measuring, then we can turn attention to giving feedback that is specific, timely and actionable. Good feedback will tell students and parents where gaps are present, how big those gaps are, and most importantly, how to close the gaps.
So, let's focus now on how to use valuable feedback systems to truly hold students accountable for the right things.

Here are links to useful resources on this topic:

• "7 Key Characteristics of Better Learning Feedback" (TeachThought)
• "Seven Keys to Effective Feedback" (elaboration on the content in the above article)
• Grant Wiggins Presentation

If I had to prioritize the steps to take in creating an effective feedback process, I would probably put emphasis on ensuring that feedback is actionable (#3) and timely (#5). The most powerful feedback also "feeds forward" to improved performance. It gives the student an idea of where to go next in the learning process. The timing of the feedback is also important. The sooner a student can receive and respond to feedback, the better.

Hopefully, there will be much more to come about ways to inject better feedback loops into our student accountability systems in our schools.

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 5: "Holding Students Accountable")

I could continue writing posts about what is wrong with grading policies and practices because of just how destructive they can be. However, I think even in the few posts I have written in this series, it is obvious that the problems caused by traditional grading methods are deep and serious. Still, the videos below are two more compelling demonstrations of the negative effects that poor grading techniques have caused in our school system. Every teacher can relate.

It is only part of the case to identify the harmful practices that need to change. The other part of the case is to then provide solutions. So, let's start heading that direction.

But first, here are a few more articles that do a great job of spelling out some of the harm done by grading along with what can be done about it:

• "From Degrading to De-Grading" by Alfie Kohn (1999)
• "Leading to Change: Effective Grading Practices" by Douglas Reeves (2008)
• "Looking at Grading" by Steve Barkley (2013)

To me, I believe the whole issue of how you "fix" a broken grading system centers on the question of accountability. More than anything else I hear from teachers is the need to have a grading policy that "holds kids accountable." They seem to fear that a change in grading policy automatically means less accountability. 

Whether that is true or not depends on one's view of accountability. The main consideration, in my opinion, is to and for what we want to hold students accountable. 

Let's make this very simple. If we break down the word, then we realize that accountability is the "ability to give an account." Grading practices are usually not helpful in terms of providing any type of long-term motivation for non-academic factors, such as organization, participation, punctuality, attitude, and effort. These items are definitely worth our time to provide guidance, correction, and support, but they are best left outside of a grading system. If you are wanting to hold students accountable to these types of activities, then please don't skew all your data by using grades to accomplish that goal.

What we actually want students to be able to give an account for is their LEARNING!
The only way to know how accountable a student is in his or her learning is to first know the standard, or target, in the first place. Therefore, a prerequisite to an effective grading system is a clear learning target! Then, and only then, can a student be held accountable to their level of mastery according to where they are in relation to the expected or desired objective.

If we agree that learning is the thing for which we want to hold students accountable, then it becomes apparent that grades, as we know them, gotta go! What becomes just as clear is that we need to replace them with an effective feedback process, which is what we will look at next time.

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 4: "Purpose-Driven Grading")

The next issue with most grading systems is mis-using grades to achieve the wrong purpose. As you can tell, these issues with grading are all interrelated. The focus of today's topic deals directly with the question of why we use grades at all. What I find is that the purposes of grades tend to fall into one of two categories:

Produce a behavior (compliance) 

vs. 

Reflect mastery/provide feedback (learning)

Many teachers argue that grades should actually do both of the above, especially depending on the age of the learner. Commonly, some teachers and parents will suggest that students need grades to help them gain the value of learning until they later develop the intrinsic motivation to appreciate it on their own without these extrinsic "prompts" (grades).

First of all, this mindset plainly ignores what we know about motivation. It, yet again, is also one of the areas where many people would see the obvious fallacy in this position if they would just step outside of the world of institutional education for a moment. Let's imagine a parent saying, "I am trying to get my child to learn the value of eating healthy snacks instead of candy by repeatedly giving them pieces of chocolate.", or "We would like to get the employees in our company to see the value of the work they do just for the sake of the creativity and joy it provides them, so we will start paying bonuses for new ideas until they appreciate that it isn't about the financial gain of designing new products." 

As absurd as this reasoning sounds, it is the same with grading policies. To be blunt, the idea of making people dependent upon a device to prove that it will help people get to a place where they can function better without that very device is just as dumb as it sounds. And that is coming from a person who used to apply that silly mindset wholeheartedly in my former teaching days.

Secondly, there is no evidence to show it motivates learning even inside the public school system. Kindergartners in public schools and children in Montessori schools (or similar systems) demonstrate an enormous enthusiasm for learning without the "reward" or "punishment" of a grade being constantly put before them. This reality is so apparent, in fact, that my school district has a "backpack vision" (picture a child with a backpack on walking into school for the first time): We want students to exit (graduate) our system with the same passion for learning that they had when they entered our system, without economics determining success. The axiom at work here is that children naturally WANT to learn before they ever encounter a grading system! 

Are we going to say that they are mature enough to understand the intrinsic value or "deeper appreciation" of learning at age 5 more than middle school or high school students? The entire line of reasoning here defies any sense of what is developmentally appropriate.

Here's the catch, though. The biggest problem with this misconception about grading is that it does indeed APPEAR to work. Of course, if you ratchet up the short-term external consequences (positive or negative) - and that is what grades are, consequences, then you will naturally see an increase in short-term compliance. This is why so many people think it is justified to use grades to produce a behavior, whether it be completing homework, turning things in on time, having an organized binder, coming to class prepared, getting a form signed by parents, attempting bonus problems, etc. (the list is endless of what we "bribe" kids to do).

Truth be told, there are appropriate times for extrinsic motivation. The problem with using grades in this way is that it could, in fact, actually have a detrimental, inverse effect on learning. And that is NOT okay!

At this point, it doesn't require a lot of studies (although they have been done) to prove this point. Every teacher already knows this is true because every teacher has heard these famous words asked by more than one student: "Is this for a grade?" Why do they care to know? Because if it's not, then why bother doing it? The value of learning doesn't even cross the student's mind when immersed in a grading culture. Sadly, I am worried that it doesn't cross many teachers' minds either.


Daniel Pink presents some interesting findings about motivation and performance in this video (if you can't view the video above). What connections can be made between his comments and our current grading policies?

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 3-C: "Better Late Than Never")

Another issue with most grading systems happens when there is an emphasis on penalizing students for late work. Rick Wormeli deals with the 'late work' challenge here.




This topic gets to the heart of a much larger problem in our schools. We need to find ways to transition from time being the constant to learning being the constant. I won't dig in to that idea here too much, but I will say that the more asynchronous practices we can introduce, the better. We must begin to deconstruct the factory-model approach.

As far as grading goes, the bottom line is that policies that eliminate hope also tend to eliminate learning. Since learning is our business in public education, this should concern us.

This is my final entry dealing with the problems of grading as they relate to forcing all kids to learn at the same time and in the same way, although one could probably argue that all grading practices somehow connect to that issue.

I will look at another aspect of grading in next week's post.

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 3-B: "Practice Makes Permanent")

The next issue with most grading systems occurs when teachers grade students' first efforts or grade practice.

In his work on faulty grading practices that inhibit learning, Ken O' Connor includes the practice of "grading first efforts." As he explains, "learning is not a 'one-shot' deal."

This bad practice ties directly to the notion that all students should learn all things at the same time, which I discussed in my previous post. Instead of rehashing that idea here, I want to move now to the specific, problematic grading practices that result from this faulty thinking, the greatest of which is giving summative scores to people while they are still in the learning process.

The sports world already well understands the learning-performance cycle. Practices are used as opportunities to learn and develop skills while coaches constantly, immediately, directly, and specifically provide feedback for athletes. With good coaches and teammates (peers), athletes are receiving information in an ongoing manner for the purpose of helping them improve.

Athletes work hard and learn from mistakes in practices despite the fact that none of their efforts or stats is counted toward a single game’s outcome! You never see a basketball scoreboard start out with one team having an advantage based on free throw percentages during practice the night before the game. You never see a football team having to start a game down a touchdown because a quarterback had too many incomplete passes in practice that week.

When you watch ESPN’s Sportscenter, you are going to see and hear reports of all kinds of statistics and highlights, but none that come from practices. Why? Because the reporters, broadcasters, coaches, and fans from everywhere all recognize that it is the game where players need to be held accountable for their achievement.

Classroom teachers would do well to take notes from this analogy and refuse to grade students’ practice, including homework. Notice that I am very intentional about distinguishing grading from giving feedback. Feedback that “feeds forward” is a critical part of the practice component of learning a new skill or concept! Formative assessment is ongoing and necessary. Grading should not be mistakenly equated to providing feedback. Indeed, grading often interferes with effectivefeedback and has no correlation to learning.

Practice should be an opportunity for a student to receive timely feedback from teachers, experience peer-assessment, and carry out self reflections. Ensuring that these aspects are key ingredients to the learning cycle will help prevent another poor practice all too often employed, the infamous completion grade.

Completion grading is what teachers use to entice students to do their homework while not destroying their hope with a string of low grades for poor performance. It is most likely done with good intentions. However, it can be quite a destructive practice when it comes to learning. 

What teachers do not often have the chance to do is take a big step back and look at the big picture of practices that they have been using for a long time. With time to do so, I believe many educators would see just how illogical it is to use completion grades to build knowledge or skills.

First, completion grades mis-communicate ability and progress to both students and parents. Many times, a student receives several consecutive 100's on homework assignments only to fail the assessment. This leaves everyone confused.

Second, completion grades discourage critical thinking because there is no need for a student to evaluate his or her work, analyze errors, attempt more challenging problems, etc.

Third, completion grades do not adequately prepare students for assessments. In fact, they can actually interfere with the learning process because of poor practice. Students can repeatedly be doing things incorrectly if they are only graded for completing the task. This is probably the most obvious and harmful negative effect of completion grades.

Imagine a coach telling a baseball player to practice batting for a "completion" grade. No coach would ever tell the player to just practice swinging a set number of times just for the sake of doing the activity, while neglecting to consider form, stance, follow-through, contact with the ball, etc., and expect that to prepare the player for game situations against pitchers.

The above example is only baseball. What if we were to apply the mentality behind completion grades to other serious endeavors, let's say preparing to do surgery or flying a plane or putting a roof on a house? Even the thought of such a thing is unacceptable.

Virtually any activity that requires a particular execution of a skill should never be rehearsed over and over without considering the quality of the action because brain research teaches us that practice makes permanent. Good practice leads to better performance. Poor practice, which can go unchecked with completion grading, can lead to poorer performance. Think about that! A student can actually be "taught" to be worse at something through this type of grading method.

So, what is the solution to the problem of completion grades?

The answer is to not grade practice at all. Only give feedback!

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 3-A: RE-thinking RE-dos)

In my previous post in this series, I shared about how my real world job experiences did not match the popular mantra that the "real world" does not allow for "second chances" or "re-dos". To be fair, in this post, I have to explore more perspectives beyond my personal experience since, after all, this argument is the primary justification given from educators and parents who are against the practice of test re-takes. But first...

I think it is worth noting that when teachers are mandated (by school policy or state legislation) to allow for re-takes, many of them often want to still penalize students by making the re-take much more difficult or capping the score that can be earned. In their minds, students who learn something first should be rewarded for doing so. Essentially, the timing of the learning, they contend, should be a factor in the grading. 

My previous post already dealt with the fact that this position defies common sense. It is not as important when a student learns something as it is that they learn it. However, because of this faulty thinking that demands all learners to perform equally well at the same time, teachers will employ averaging or grade reductions for students who show mastery or growth later than their peers.

This middle school teacher does a great job of thoroughly addressing the problem of averaging in this blog post. I will let it suffice for my take on that issue.

Now, back to considering how the "real world" works. Do we need to prepare kids for a "one and done" world that sends people packing if they fail the first time?


Well, Rick Wormeli handles this issue very well in this video.

Coincidentally, I just heard this TED Talk from General Stanley McChrystal where he highlights the necessity of being able to fail and later improve even in military contexts. 

Here is an interesting commercial from one of the greatest professional athletes of all time.

It just so happens that someone close to me recently failed their driving test, but then this person went back and took it again. Now, this person has a license! It also happens that I work with administrators in my district who failed their certification exam the first time. Now, they are certified and doing very well in their positions. These are two more real-world examples of situations where people can re-take tests for full credit. Nowhere on the driver's license or professional certificate is it indicated that it required multiple attempts to show mastery.

It makes one wonder if some teachers are fighting hard to prepare students for a world that only exists in their imaginations. Oh, by the way, I know a number of teachers who did not pass their certification exams the first time either. But you know what? They eventually did pass them, now have teaching jobs, and get this, they make the same pay as their colleagues who passed their tests the first time! Hmm...what do you know about that?

Finally, here is a great summary of the reasons to encourage retakes/redos. 

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 3: "All Kids Learn the Same Content in the Same Way at the Same Time - Um, No!")

Another major problem with most grading systems is that they perpetuate the obvious myth that all students learn in the same way at the same time. Clearly, this ridiculous, factory-model perspective is at the heart of many educational ills, but in the next few posts I will focus on the part grades play in exasperating this problem. In particular, I will address concerns associated with re-do/re-take policies, grading homework/practice, and penalties for late work.

Before getting into specifics, though, let’s just deal up front with the absurdity of this paradigm that serves as a driving force behind most of our grading practices.  

It is pretty crazy when we consider what we do to children in our current educational system without even questioning some of the inherent assumptions. One of the assumptions is that if a teacher teaches something, then that automatically equates to a student learning something. Therefore, we (teachers) "cover" an enormous amount of material in our classes. Then, we hold students accountable for knowing, understanding and applying that material (all of it!) right away. To take matters worse, in many cases, students have only a passive encounter with the curriculum.

Some will contend that doing anything different equates with lowering expectations. "It worked for us when we were in school. It should be the same for students now. We didn't get second chances or do-overs. Kids these days are becoming so irresponsible. Besides, the 'real world' doesn't allow 'do-overs'!" The argument goes something like that, and I have heard it way too many times.

The most significant flaw in this argument is that it just isn't true. There are tons of facts and concepts that you "learned" in your K-12 education that I am quite certain you don't know now. Don't believe me? Take a few minutes sometime and Google the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills), or curriculum standards for your state if you are not in Texas, for any grade level and see how many of them you know today. I just did this with the 5th grade TEKS in Language Arts and Social Studies. Prepare to be humbled.

The point is that while your teachers most likely explicitly "taught" all of that material, we cannot assume that much learning took place. (That is not a knock on any of your teachers by the way. The same is true for the classes I taught.) It is simply unreasonable to expect humans to master all content when it is initially introduced. Students of all ages need time to review, rehearse, manipulate, analyze, synthesize, and organize information. None of these things can be rushed.

Moreover, the totally insane idea is to expect all people to advance through new knowledge at the same pace. All it takes is a parent of only two children to tell you that kids learn and develop differently! We readily admit this differentiation exists, but our practices betray us.

So, the traditional cycle of repeatedly and quickly presenting lessons, assigning homework about those lessons, testing on those lessons, grading students based on their achievement on the tests over the lessons, then moving on to other lessons so that we can "get through the curriculum" is an approach that has been shown to be sorely deficient.

It is also false that most of the "real world" does not allow for making corrections or re-doing activities. At least, not in my real world. I recently listed all the jobs that I could recall having in my life. There were about 15 of them, including YMCA membership clerk, fast food cook, grocery bagger, bus driver, youth minister, and teacher, to name a few. I realized that there is one thing all the jobs had in common: I frequently made mistakes and constantly had to learn from my failures. Over and over and over. It is no different in my current position as a school administrator.

In fact, mistake-making and continuous improvement upon initially poor performance are not only practices that I was, and am, not fired, reprimanded or punished for, but they are valuable to my growth as a contributor to the organization. See, my real world has no resemblance to the “real world” for which many teachers fear we are not preparing students.

Furthermore, it is most ironic to hear the argument against re-dos and corrections come from public school educators who are in a profession that makes it extremely difficult to get rid of teachers who perform poorly year after year, much less one time. If teachers in the real world fail to meet expectations, then they do not lose their jobs. They may receive extra training, resources, or time. They may be placed in a professional learning community. They may be put on a growth plan. They may have additional people provide them with feedback. The list goes on and on, and the objective in all these cases is to provide the employee with a way to recover from the loss or failure.

Is it hypocritical to refuse the same opportunities to young people still in their development?

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 2: "100 Degrees of Separation")

The first issue with most current grading systems is the 100-point scale. 
A couple problems contribute to the inappropriate use of the 100-point scale.
One is how we use it to calculate percentage grades. The other is the disproportionate weight that zeros have on grades.

First, this blog post raises the concern of calculating percentages to determine students' averages. Consider the problems described and whether you agree or disagree with them.


Second, Rick Wormeli does a fabulous job of breaking down a number of the difficulties with the 100-point scale and, in particular, giving zeros on this scale. 





If you are a parent, then what questions does this make you want to ask?

If you are a teacher, how would you respond to the claims made in Rob Eberts' blog and Rick Wormeli's video? 


One final thought about taking on the 100-point scale. It may seem impossible to address something so embedded in our assessment practices. The 100-point scale is easily accepted as part of our educational system by parents, teachers, and students alike. Why mess with a "good" thing?

Consider this. If it such a good practice, then why it is abandoned by both "ends" of most educational institutions? None of the schools where I live use it when children are starting out in preschool or early elementary grade levels. On the other end, college students have used 4, 5, or 6-point scales for years. I realize those numbers are sometimes nothing more than conversions from a 100-point scale, but I wonder what the original intent was for doing it that way.

We could argue that it is used all over the world, but that's not true. Denmark is an example of a nation that uses a 13-point scale. Belgium, France, Portugal, Peru, and Venezuela are a handful of countries that use a 20-point scale. Even states in the U.S. are beginning to introduce legislation and policies regarding the communication of student progress on different scales.

I am not arguing that we should model our education programs or policies after any of these nations or even our own American university system, which is fraught with its own problems. The point is to show that there is nothing sacred about the 100-point scale. It is flawed and we can do better for our kids!

As I write this blog, the Winter Olympics are going on in Sochi, Russia. At least maybe the 100-point scale is all they use there. Oh, wait, that's right...oops!

Grades Gotta Go! (part 1)

All right, here we go!

Not much has changed about grading over the decades since this observation was made by Paul Dressel

At the beginning of the year, I wrote a post listing some of the fundamental shifts in public education that could make dramatic improvements for children. One of them was:

• From Giving grades (that generally offer no information on how to improve) to Providing feedback (that feeds forward to further learning)

In the next series of posts that come out on Mondays (my day for focusing on Education reform), I will unpack this idea of transitioning from Grades to Feedback.

Concepts we will address include:

• Purpose of Grades
• Problem with the 100-point Scale
• Student Choice and Assessments
• Connection Between Grades and Learning Targets
• Problems with Grading 'Practice'
• Benefits of Specific, Actionable Feedback

Here are some experts and educational reformers that have influenced me when it comes to this topic:  (not an exhaustive list)

• Ken O'Connor
• Rick Wormeli
• Robert Marzano
• Thomas Guskey
• David Langford
• Susan Brookhart
• Grant Wiggins
• Jennifer Stewart and Leander ISD Facilitators

There are few topics in education that are more controversial and more volatile than this one. I invite you to read with an open mind and I welcome your comments of support and challenge, of agreement and disagreement. We may have more questions than answers when we are done (as if we will ever be done with this discussion!), but it is worth discussing as we pursue to make the world of school a much greater place for all children.

To introduce this topic, I will leave you today with this video:

Here is an interesting blog post on this topic.

Did I Forget to Remind Myself?

My last education-related post dealt with memory. 

Dr. Judy Willis

This week I want to quickly recommend another expert in the area of learning and the brain: Dr. Judy Willis. I encourage you to check out her "Top 10" list on "How to be Your Child's Memory Coach". Her book, Learning to Love Math, was a terrific resource that impacted my teaching when I was in the classroom. I explicitly taught my students some of the concepts I learned in the book. You can read the Introduction and first chapter here.

Last time I wrote about the fact that the brain looks for patterns or relationships among the bits of information coming in to the brain. The truth is that so much stimuli is bombarding the human brain every second. The only way we can function is for the brain to instantly be able to filter all this incoming data. Dr. Willis talks about the parts of the brain responsible for that filtering process. Again, I want to stress that this is a part of normal human functioning. The brain must filter out boring, non-essential, un-emotional, irrelevant pieces of information for survival and thriving. The brain cannot and will not pay attention to such things.

It probably wouldn't hurt for us to slow down in our schools and reflect on that simple truth. How does this reality affect our practice? How do we get beyond theory?

Remember How to Remember

Let's face an obvious truth in education.
You can't learn what you can't remember. 
You can't reflect on what you can't remember. 
You can't apply what you can't remember. 

The prerequisite to being able to comprehend, analyze, evaluate, categorize, debate, or carry out any kind of higher-order thinking process is to first simply recall the information. 

Therefore, one of the critical pieces to learning is memory.

Fortunately, we now have an entire field devoted to the neuroscience of memory. We are able to identify practices that improve memory and those that hinder, or even prevent, it.
In fact, a great example of what we are learning on this topic can be found in a webinar from EdWeb, presented by Sandra Aamodt.

One of the discoveries about memory that makes a lot of sense is the realization that teaching concepts in isolation of other concepts is a sure fire way to keep kids from remembering them. The brain naturally looks for patterns and relationships among pieces of information. Retention always increases when facts are learned in context and when they are connected to one another.

In fact, according to Dr. Aamodt, all learning is "re-learning" in a way because of how the brain organizes information each time it processes it. When the brain does not see the relevance to future activity or a connection to previous learning, it does not see the value in retaining the new teaching despite how fabulous a presentation might have been given in introducing the concept. The brain will simply dump the information.

This is not a matter of weak willpower, negative attitudes, poor classroom management, student irresponsibility, or any other fault of the teacher or student. It is neuroscience. It is how our brains work! 

It is, therefore, problematic that we often teach a ridiculously overwhelming amount of content in our schools and don't allow the time and space for the brain to make connections and organize the information properly for later retention. It is also disturbing when we then blame students' lack of studying and label them as "not caring" when they cannot recall all this information on tests and assignments.

Are some students irresponsible? 
Sure. 
Do some students refuse to study, which leads to poor academic achievement? 
Of course. 

However, if we are going to be professionally honest, then we have to face the fact that it is equally irresponsible on our part as educators to ignore the reality of brain functioning when it comes to academic performance!

Perhaps our starting point should be to focus on the teaching/learning process itself. How do the things we have control over in our system affect memory?

If we know that what we do makes a difference in what and how children remember, then at what point does it become a form of systemic, professionally endorsed "child neglect" if it does not change our scope and sequence, assessment practices, and instruction?

Project-based Learning - The Challenge to Getting There

I have become interested in the concepts behind project-based learning, or problem-based learning. Some people use the terms interchangeably, while others object to doing so. I don't want to get into that semantic debate. For me, the simple point is that anything that gets us away from the traditional model of dumping a bunch of information on kids to have them later regurgitate that information back to us on a test is a good thing.

It might be messy and imperfect. There even may be some pedagogical flaws along the way, but the need to approach instruction from a more learner-centered, discovery-oriented, critical, questioning manner is so apparent in our present day. Having kids memorize a bunch of content for their brains to recall in the short-term and then dump so it can move on to the next load of content just won't cut it anymore. (And btw, make no mistake, that is what our brains do.) Students can access that kind of information at the click of a mouse.

But what they can't do in an instant is reflect, problem-solve, manipulate data, and struggle with concepts. These things take time and interaction, and should be the focus of schooling.

The problem is that we know these things have to change, but teachers often feel trapped in an outdated system with outdated metrics. Many teachers would like to transform their classroom practices, but they don't feel they have the freedom to do something new. At least, this is my perception.

I wonder if most teachers feel this way. I would love to better understand the dilemma that teachers face as they attempt to do what is best for kids.

Teachers are left disillusioned and frustrated. 

How can we change the system to encourage, not discourage, risk-taking, innovation, and learner engagement?