At Eagle Rock, we have houseparents who live in a house connected to residences for up to 16 students. Over time, I have heard houseparents struggle with how well they are doing. It caused me to wonder, how does a houseparent assess how well they are doing? It got me thinking about "roles" in life like being a father or husband. How do I assess myself in those areas. These are notes from a one-hour meeting I facilitated presenting my ideas on some answers to these questions.
Definitions
• A role is a relationship to others or something (like your finances) that you choose to maintain to a particular standard and according to a set of values. It’s never complete.
• A project is an outcome that can eventually be checked off as “done.” It takes more than one action to complete.
When confronted with work, you have to ask yourself, “Is this something I can check off as done” or “Is this something I have to manage?” If the latter (i.e., relationships, fitness, houseparenting) then that role comes with certain qualities. Misinterpreting those qualities or characteristics causes problems.
Qualities of a role:
1) You will always think there is more to do than you can possibly do – use this thought as a signal that you are in a role rather than as a signal that “something’s wrong.”
2) You will either never feel you are good enough or if you do sustain some sense of accomplishment, it will be punctuated by self-doubt from time to time – another signal that you are in a role.
3) Because of first two you will alternate between beating yourself up and blaming some 3rd party {both are versions of “blame” and escaping personal responsibility – even “beating yourself up” is a form of taking evasive action and not putting yourself in the driver’s seat}
4) With a role, boundary issues will emerge –
(a) boundary you need to put up between yourself & others AND
(b) boundary between our imagination of what we think we can do and what we realistically do (not thinking that we can actually meet ALL of our students needs, we would hope that we behave in such a way that our actions correlate to students getting what they need).
What follows are three ways to “measure” yourself. Some are more useful than others. Some cause harm when used inappropriately.
Attitudinal –(self-talk and "I’m being" statements) I’m open, I’m available, I could probably be doing more.
If a positive attitudinal desire helps to suggest some things you can do (see inputs), then attitudinal thoughts can be useful. However, if you are referencing these attitudinal statements to judge yourself (i.e., I want to be available but I’m not) then you are using an inappropriate measure. You will never be “good enough.”
Outputs – It’s totally appropriate to assess an organization or system on outputs: educating, serving or graduating students. It is even appropriate to assess yourself over the long haul and see that more or less, you have made a positive difference. However, in the short term and with individual events, this is also an inappropriate measure of your effectiveness. This is a boundary issue. You have only so much control over what a student does in the next day or so. You are not responsible for a choice some student made to leave the school.
Inputs- (things you are doing, actions you are taking) Inputs are what you do based on some theory of action you hold. For example, I will check in with my advisees once a week outside of advisory because I think that this establishes relationships better than only talking during advisory. That in turn will make it more likely that the student will stay in school.
So, the input becomes “one check-in per week outside of advisory.” Or in our houses, “I will open the door three times a week so students can come use the kitchen.”
It is these inputs that one should look at and ask, am I staying true to my commitments? Have I kept my word? If yes, then you are doing well in your role. If it turns out that students are not learning or they don’t stay in school, this is a failure of your theory of action, not you. Once you review the outputs, reflect and adjust. Commit to new and different actions based on your learning.
The world of inputs and what we can do with it
1. Sharing common practices provides new ideas for inputs. If you like what someone else is doing, adopt it as a practice. Use your colleagues as assets who have already been successful with some practice (i.e. putting out a newsletter).
2. Sharing your input commitments with fellow houseparents and with house team can create support and accountability groups around inputs.
3. Sharing input commitments with others (ie., supervisors) provides information for targeted training and professional development. It is much easier to figure out what houseparents need if their practices are shared rather than make some vague request for training and support.
All the above reflects real early thinking on the subject. As I apply these ideas more explicitly, I imagine some of my thinking on this will evolve.
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Individual's concerns represented as group concerns
Occasionally within a group, a few individuals may have a concern. Rather than say "this is my concern," the person will represent it as a group concern: "Our group feels slighted by what you did" or "The group doesn't think so." By the way, I'm talking about concerns that are shared by a few. I'm not referring to concerns that statistically do represent the group.
The problem here is that the group is referred to in monolithic terms. That is, generalizations are asserted in a way to create the impression that this statement is true for most if not all members of the group. What is really happening is that the speaker holds a minority view but holds it intensely. I believe that there is not an easy way to present one's valid and intense feelings about something and the way to get things heard is to assert incorrectly that the entire group feels this way.
The trap for the leader or the change agent is to accept this as a group issue and continue to address the group. The feelings and reactions are valid and should not be ignored just because they belong to one or two people. But, the right approach is to talk to the individuals one on one.
The trap is especially prevalent in places that put people in groups without clear boundaries. We don't really practice the discipline of teams yet we put groups together that Katzenbach would call a "compromise unit." These are the worst kinds of groups - they are a pseudo-team. They lack the leadership of a single-leader unit and they pretend to be a team when they don't practice the disciplines required of a team. Fundamentally, this is the real source of the problem described above.
Folks wouldn't mask their individual concerns as group concerns if they were clear on the boundaries and processes associated with the work unit they belong to.
The problem here is that the group is referred to in monolithic terms. That is, generalizations are asserted in a way to create the impression that this statement is true for most if not all members of the group. What is really happening is that the speaker holds a minority view but holds it intensely. I believe that there is not an easy way to present one's valid and intense feelings about something and the way to get things heard is to assert incorrectly that the entire group feels this way.
The trap for the leader or the change agent is to accept this as a group issue and continue to address the group. The feelings and reactions are valid and should not be ignored just because they belong to one or two people. But, the right approach is to talk to the individuals one on one.
The trap is especially prevalent in places that put people in groups without clear boundaries. We don't really practice the discipline of teams yet we put groups together that Katzenbach would call a "compromise unit." These are the worst kinds of groups - they are a pseudo-team. They lack the leadership of a single-leader unit and they pretend to be a team when they don't practice the disciplines required of a team. Fundamentally, this is the real source of the problem described above.
Folks wouldn't mask their individual concerns as group concerns if they were clear on the boundaries and processes associated with the work unit they belong to.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Rough draft of a critique of our organization
Our school not only loses students and fails to graduate students at an alarmingly poor rate, but over the past seven years we are accelerating our rate of loss. This place looks nice to the outsider and we enjoy a great reputation.
Two metaphors come to mind:
1. The fairy tale of the emperor strutting about and none of the witnesses are willing to tell the truth. The emperor has no clothes.
2. The white city of the great Chicago World's Fair. Shiny and pretty on the surface, gleaming and unparalleled in its grandeur. But, none of the 200 buildings were built to stand. All temporary, no infrastructure, all plaster, no stone. Within a year, the buildings were gone.
What's the nature of our infrastructure?
Leadership of the school is siloed and characterized by cover up (see Chris Argyris for comprehensive descriptions of the nature of "cover up" in organizations)
Leadership team occasionally but rarely engages collectively on school issues. A typical meeting characterizes the way leadership works on issues. We report out as departments – mostly announcements. Rarely does anyone ask his colleagues for insight, expertise and perspective on a problem he is dealing with. When someone does ask for input it invariably ends with head of school saying, okay that's enough of that. So and so (whichever department raised it) will take care of it (and implies we don't need to know anymore).
Members of leadership team occasionally don't agree with each other. Sometimes a member makes his disagreement known usually in an extremely polite way. However, there are many examples where members hold their tongue for various reasons (and usually express it inappropriately after the meeting to others). Those times included when it appears that someone is settled in his idea and will be resistant to feedback, when communication becomes too difficult because someone else doesn't seem to understand, when the issue seems small enough that it's not worth the trouble to pursue understanding, when someone seems defensive. Often someone wants to raise a question but the speaker doesn't request feedback. Too many times we don't speak frankly and honestly with each other.
We spend most of our time in reactive mode. There's little collective commitment to long term strategic thinking. Folks attention are generally on the latest crisis or commitment and strategy is seen as a luxury, not a priority. “pay now or pay later, meineke”
Strategy is nonexistent
We do not sustain sufficient attention at the leadership level on long term strategy. We allow opportunistic, ad hoc thinking to dominate and distract: one week notice about international visitors, major travel and service project without consultation, slogans and announcements of new initiatives at the beginning of the semester with no follow through...etc.
We execute ill advised short term fixes that are not embedded in any strategic thinking: A staff member running the truth and reconciliation group, flooding the school with too many students, etc.
Agreed upon processes are virtually non-existent
We have no standard processes to depend upon to resolve conflicts, make decisions, solve problems or drive our culture. Community meetings are based on loudest voices. There's no consistent level of responsibility for the quality or execution of meetings. No coherent process for student behavior issues, for disciplining staff, sticking to an initiative,
Whatever processes we do have in place are poorly managed
Different staff from time to time undermine directives and processes: Staff member dropping peer council, instructor not having a writing program, weak oversight on house focus.
Hunches, intuition and gut moves dominate: sending some students home, inconsistent decisions with students.
At the rate we're going we will have a 10% graduation rate over the next 7 years. Falling to less than half of what it was the first 7 years. If our funders were really paying attention to the data and understood expected results in high schools around the country, they would not tolerate the return on investment.
Our school not only loses students and fails to graduate students at an alarmingly poor rate, but over the past seven years we are accelerating our rate of loss. This place looks nice to the outsider and we enjoy a great reputation.
Two metaphors come to mind:
1. The fairy tale of the emperor strutting about and none of the witnesses are willing to tell the truth. The emperor has no clothes.
2. The white city of the great Chicago World's Fair. Shiny and pretty on the surface, gleaming and unparalleled in its grandeur. But, none of the 200 buildings were built to stand. All temporary, no infrastructure, all plaster, no stone. Within a year, the buildings were gone.
What's the nature of our infrastructure?
Leadership of the school is siloed and characterized by cover up (see Chris Argyris for comprehensive descriptions of the nature of "cover up" in organizations)
Leadership team occasionally but rarely engages collectively on school issues. A typical meeting characterizes the way leadership works on issues. We report out as departments – mostly announcements. Rarely does anyone ask his colleagues for insight, expertise and perspective on a problem he is dealing with. When someone does ask for input it invariably ends with head of school saying, okay that's enough of that. So and so (whichever department raised it) will take care of it (and implies we don't need to know anymore).
Members of leadership team occasionally don't agree with each other. Sometimes a member makes his disagreement known usually in an extremely polite way. However, there are many examples where members hold their tongue for various reasons (and usually express it inappropriately after the meeting to others). Those times included when it appears that someone is settled in his idea and will be resistant to feedback, when communication becomes too difficult because someone else doesn't seem to understand, when the issue seems small enough that it's not worth the trouble to pursue understanding, when someone seems defensive. Often someone wants to raise a question but the speaker doesn't request feedback. Too many times we don't speak frankly and honestly with each other.
We spend most of our time in reactive mode. There's little collective commitment to long term strategic thinking. Folks attention are generally on the latest crisis or commitment and strategy is seen as a luxury, not a priority. “pay now or pay later, meineke”
Strategy is nonexistent
We do not sustain sufficient attention at the leadership level on long term strategy. We allow opportunistic, ad hoc thinking to dominate and distract: one week notice about international visitors, major travel and service project without consultation, slogans and announcements of new initiatives at the beginning of the semester with no follow through...etc.
We execute ill advised short term fixes that are not embedded in any strategic thinking: A staff member running the truth and reconciliation group, flooding the school with too many students, etc.
Agreed upon processes are virtually non-existent
We have no standard processes to depend upon to resolve conflicts, make decisions, solve problems or drive our culture. Community meetings are based on loudest voices. There's no consistent level of responsibility for the quality or execution of meetings. No coherent process for student behavior issues, for disciplining staff, sticking to an initiative,
Whatever processes we do have in place are poorly managed
Different staff from time to time undermine directives and processes: Staff member dropping peer council, instructor not having a writing program, weak oversight on house focus.
Hunches, intuition and gut moves dominate: sending some students home, inconsistent decisions with students.
At the rate we're going we will have a 10% graduation rate over the next 7 years. Falling to less than half of what it was the first 7 years. If our funders were really paying attention to the data and understood expected results in high schools around the country, they would not tolerate the return on investment.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Pyramid Principle and Assignment 7
I tried to use the Minto Pyramid Principle as presented by Phil to structure this document. I still fear that there are logical breakdowns within this structure. Here's my first draft.
Assignment: Identify cohort, analyze data, analyze systems. Look for causes.
Assignment 7
Bronx Guild
Two years after founding the Bronx Guild, we do not have any reliable methods for analyzing the causes for the results we produce. This situation is startling given that we will graduate our first class of students in June 2006 and 85% of that cohort has not earned sufficient credits to be promoted to the appropriate grade. Here we describe our efforts to analyze this problem situation using data analysis and systems analysis, methods that attempt to link cause and effect in a way that would lead to taking promising actions.
Data analysis was not useful for discovering causes or promoting action
We employed a common statistical method described by Douglas Reeves (REFERENCE HERE) to conduct a data analysis. We compared attendance, special services classification and 8th grade reading and math levels to performance [SPREADSHEETS AND GRAPHS ATTACHED). The analysis was not useful for discovering causes as correlations were were not discovered nor for promoting action as the readily available data were primarily describing qualities outside of the school’s control.
Systems analysis was useful for hypothesizing causes and promoting action
Coached through a process by Liz Gewirtzman (WHERE DID THE EXERCISES COME FROM?) we conducted a systems analysis. We took steps that would help us deduce how the Bronx Guild was set up in such a way to have produced the problem situation:
Steps/Questions
Team Responses
What’s the problem?
85% of our 11th graders are undercredited.
Why is that a problem?
We’re supposed to graduate kids in 4 years according to the system and society.
What about this most concerns us?
Eventually we’ll be labeled a failure and suffer a loss of freedom. We will experience constraints on our ability to work.
If these were symptoms of some disease, what would the disease be called?
Arrogance.
Uncertainty.
Imagine there were a solution…what would it have to do to affect the disease?
The solution would have to help us see that our arrogance (or uncertainty) is getting in the way of student’s learning and that external constraints are not the problem. It’s US not THEM.
What message would forward that solution?
“One kid at a time” or
“In 4 years!”
We need a message that addresses the disease and causes actions or behaviors different than what we have been doing and provides the lift we need. We need to think about how it affects decision rules and how the message can be implemented in any situation. Questions we need to ask include “what does the audience believe that makes them favorable towards this message? and What does the audience believe that makes them unfavorable?”
The team’s response to this exercise in systems analysis was useful in contemplating causes that affect student performance at the Bronx Guild. The responses resonated with team members: we saw that “arrogance” described a pervasive attitude that “we know best” and that “uncertainty” described the lack of response amongst staff when their competence is challenged [REFERENCE HUMAN SIDE OF SCHOOL CHANGE FOR CHALLENGE TO COMPETENCE AS REASON FOR RESISTANCE TO CHANGE]. We think there may be other valid diagnoses but we chose to focus on these two in the interests of taking actions immediately. This analysis put the source of action directly in the hands of Bronx Guild staff and therefore endowed us with a sense of agency.
The most useful analysis (systems) distinguished itself from the less useful analysis (data) by uncovering causes and promoting action
Our efforts to analyze the problem situation of undercredited 11th graders entailed two forms of analyses supported by course teachings and readings. These methods reflect our efforts to link cause and effect and determing promising actions. We discovered that the data analysis was not useful in this regard because we could not find correlations between inputs (e.g., attendance, special needs identification and reading and math levels) and outputs (e.g., credit accumulation and Regents pass rates). Furthermore, we were restricted to using that data which was readily available. That data largely described characteristics that were outside of the school’s area of control.
In contrast, our systems analysis uncovered theories that both resonated with the team’s experience and endowed the team with a sense of agency. The action plan will be described in the next document in this series (assignment 8).
Michael
Assignment: Identify cohort, analyze data, analyze systems. Look for causes.
Assignment 7
Bronx Guild
Two years after founding the Bronx Guild, we do not have any reliable methods for analyzing the causes for the results we produce. This situation is startling given that we will graduate our first class of students in June 2006 and 85% of that cohort has not earned sufficient credits to be promoted to the appropriate grade. Here we describe our efforts to analyze this problem situation using data analysis and systems analysis, methods that attempt to link cause and effect in a way that would lead to taking promising actions.
Data analysis was not useful for discovering causes or promoting action
We employed a common statistical method described by Douglas Reeves (REFERENCE HERE) to conduct a data analysis. We compared attendance, special services classification and 8th grade reading and math levels to performance [SPREADSHEETS AND GRAPHS ATTACHED). The analysis was not useful for discovering causes as correlations were were not discovered nor for promoting action as the readily available data were primarily describing qualities outside of the school’s control.
Systems analysis was useful for hypothesizing causes and promoting action
Coached through a process by Liz Gewirtzman (WHERE DID THE EXERCISES COME FROM?) we conducted a systems analysis. We took steps that would help us deduce how the Bronx Guild was set up in such a way to have produced the problem situation:
Steps/Questions
Team Responses
What’s the problem?
85% of our 11th graders are undercredited.
Why is that a problem?
We’re supposed to graduate kids in 4 years according to the system and society.
What about this most concerns us?
Eventually we’ll be labeled a failure and suffer a loss of freedom. We will experience constraints on our ability to work.
If these were symptoms of some disease, what would the disease be called?
Arrogance.
Uncertainty.
Imagine there were a solution…what would it have to do to affect the disease?
The solution would have to help us see that our arrogance (or uncertainty) is getting in the way of student’s learning and that external constraints are not the problem. It’s US not THEM.
What message would forward that solution?
“One kid at a time” or
“In 4 years!”
We need a message that addresses the disease and causes actions or behaviors different than what we have been doing and provides the lift we need. We need to think about how it affects decision rules and how the message can be implemented in any situation. Questions we need to ask include “what does the audience believe that makes them favorable towards this message? and What does the audience believe that makes them unfavorable?”
The team’s response to this exercise in systems analysis was useful in contemplating causes that affect student performance at the Bronx Guild. The responses resonated with team members: we saw that “arrogance” described a pervasive attitude that “we know best” and that “uncertainty” described the lack of response amongst staff when their competence is challenged [REFERENCE HUMAN SIDE OF SCHOOL CHANGE FOR CHALLENGE TO COMPETENCE AS REASON FOR RESISTANCE TO CHANGE]. We think there may be other valid diagnoses but we chose to focus on these two in the interests of taking actions immediately. This analysis put the source of action directly in the hands of Bronx Guild staff and therefore endowed us with a sense of agency.
The most useful analysis (systems) distinguished itself from the less useful analysis (data) by uncovering causes and promoting action
Our efforts to analyze the problem situation of undercredited 11th graders entailed two forms of analyses supported by course teachings and readings. These methods reflect our efforts to link cause and effect and determing promising actions. We discovered that the data analysis was not useful in this regard because we could not find correlations between inputs (e.g., attendance, special needs identification and reading and math levels) and outputs (e.g., credit accumulation and Regents pass rates). Furthermore, we were restricted to using that data which was readily available. That data largely described characteristics that were outside of the school’s area of control.
In contrast, our systems analysis uncovered theories that both resonated with the team’s experience and endowed the team with a sense of agency. The action plan will be described in the next document in this series (assignment 8).
Michael
Sunday, March 27, 2005
WHAT'S UP WITH US?
Al Writes:
Folks,
I’m feeling like we are not acting like a team, nor are we sticking to what we say we’re going to do. I feel like we are together as a team building the k’nex tower in class and then become a bunch of independent operators when we are running the school. Here are some reasons why I think this:
I’m sure that folks could add or subtract from this list. As well, I’m sure y’all could point out how I’ve actively taken part in the aforementioned dysfunction. True, true…
The point is that I’m worried we are slipping into our old isolationist habits. (Did we ever really break them?) I think we have to figure out some way to pull together, concentrate our efforts and hold each other accountable before the year’s over. I personally do not expect Michael back in the school this year. And if we continue to fracture without him there day-to-day, I think we’ll be in a very bad spot at the end of the year.
What do you all think?
Peace,
Al
Folks,
I’m feeling like we are not acting like a team, nor are we sticking to what we say we’re going to do. I feel like we are together as a team building the k’nex tower in class and then become a bunch of independent operators when we are running the school. Here are some reasons why I think this:
- We said we were going to work on the undercredited 11th graders because we believed that all of our students were similarly undercredited (i.e. the 11th graders weren’t any different than any other group of kids in the school). Yet we are beginning to set up structures and practices that address the symptom of the 11th graders, instead of the disease of undercrediting (i.e. we want to start afterschool and Saturday times – some of them classes targeting performance expectations – for the 11th graders, a proposal for teaching a class during the day for the 11th graders, etc) How does this help the undercredited 9th and 10th graders? If our numbers hold true there are 85% of the 9th and 10th grade that are undercredited too! (BTW, what’s up with all the “offer classes” solutions?)
- In a very long meeting at the region, we said we were going to work on conferencing and grid use as leverage points to crediting. We set up the conferencing groups but then have done almost no work with them. We introduced a grid tracking sheet and then have ignored its existence for a week and a half. Now I’m just as guilty as everyone else. But what are we doing that keeps us from working on this?
- We have committed to conversations about the staff attendance problem. They haven’t happened. Why?
- Frenchy seems to be isolated. We aren’t making sure he’s with us. Just like last class, we aren’t making sure that all the members of our team are able to speak as clearly and concisely as each member of the group. Why?
I’m sure that folks could add or subtract from this list. As well, I’m sure y’all could point out how I’ve actively taken part in the aforementioned dysfunction. True, true…
The point is that I’m worried we are slipping into our old isolationist habits. (Did we ever really break them?) I think we have to figure out some way to pull together, concentrate our efforts and hold each other accountable before the year’s over. I personally do not expect Michael back in the school this year. And if we continue to fracture without him there day-to-day, I think we’ll be in a very bad spot at the end of the year.
What do you all think?
Peace,
Al
Monday, March 07, 2005
Strategic Planning Meeting
The Thinking in Systems Thinking - check it out for a one page synopsis.
Step 1. Constructing Hypotheses or Models
We used causal loops and system archetypes to create models that might explain the uncredited situation (our problem)
Archetypes
Shifting the Burden quick fixes: blaming student motivation, creating packets for easy credit
Tragedy of the Commons lots of uncoordinated individual activity limiting gains for each teacher
Fixes that Fail making one person responsible for the assessment of an individual student, banking seat time
Escalation teachers vs. students using credit vs. behavior as weapons
Drifting Goals desire to give away credits over improving instruction
Themes
Credits used as weapons.
Quick fixes preferred over improving instruction.
Isolating assessment: single person's responsibility
Credits seen as commodity
Delays, delays, delays inherent in anything that addresses fundamental problem.
Step 2. Designing a way to Test Hypotheses or Model
Variables we could consider: presence of principles of learning, conferencing events and quality, reduce performance expectations, sending PID letters, creating incentive system.
Measure outcomes we could consider: progress on grids, looking at student work, report cards, attendance
Our preference for Step 2.
Variable > Monitoring, supporting and improving conferencing.
Outcome> Progress as measured on grids
Another interesting thing to do
Variable > PID letters
Outcomes > Progress as measured by latest round of report cards
What's next? Questions. What was missing?
Some were concerned that we did yet more analysis at the expense of getting better at helping teachers with conferencing. What will we do about helping teachers with conferencing, grids and learning plans?
Our litmus test was whether or not we had something robust enough to serve us until June rather than act in day-to-day mode. Do we have that? What is it?
If the message we are sending is "we are dancing as fast as we can," what new message is replacing that? What systems, structures and decision rules will be changed? Because if none of it is changed then we will get what we have always been getting.
Michael
Step 1. Constructing Hypotheses or Models
We used causal loops and system archetypes to create models that might explain the uncredited situation (our problem)
Archetypes
Shifting the Burden quick fixes: blaming student motivation, creating packets for easy credit
Tragedy of the Commons lots of uncoordinated individual activity limiting gains for each teacher
Fixes that Fail making one person responsible for the assessment of an individual student, banking seat time
Escalation teachers vs. students using credit vs. behavior as weapons
Drifting Goals desire to give away credits over improving instruction
Themes
Credits used as weapons.
Quick fixes preferred over improving instruction.
Isolating assessment: single person's responsibility
Credits seen as commodity
Delays, delays, delays inherent in anything that addresses fundamental problem.
Step 2. Designing a way to Test Hypotheses or Model
Variables we could consider: presence of principles of learning, conferencing events and quality, reduce performance expectations, sending PID letters, creating incentive system.
Measure outcomes we could consider: progress on grids, looking at student work, report cards, attendance
Our preference for Step 2.
Variable > Monitoring, supporting and improving conferencing.
Outcome> Progress as measured on grids
Another interesting thing to do
Variable > PID letters
Outcomes > Progress as measured by latest round of report cards
What's next? Questions. What was missing?
Some were concerned that we did yet more analysis at the expense of getting better at helping teachers with conferencing. What will we do about helping teachers with conferencing, grids and learning plans?
Our litmus test was whether or not we had something robust enough to serve us until June rather than act in day-to-day mode. Do we have that? What is it?
If the message we are sending is "we are dancing as fast as we can," what new message is replacing that? What systems, structures and decision rules will be changed? Because if none of it is changed then we will get what we have always been getting.
Michael
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Class 03.03.05 – Messaging and Decision Rules
Problem Statement: 85% of our 11th graders are undercredited.
Why is this a problem? The message “out there” is that kids should graduate in 4 years.
Why is that a problem? It hurts our viability (invites mandates and micromanaging)
Name of disease? Arrogance (although I still have difficulty with this one – see earlier post…I prefer fear, uncertainty)
So, everyone is acting in accordance with some message. What would that message be?
Message? “This is as good as it gets. The model takes time. We’re dancing as fast as we can.”
What would we have to believe for this message to be true?
Belief? Time does not matter.
What structures and decision rules support this belief? (This bears further fleshing out as we had limited time by design)
SYSTEM: Distribution
STRUCTURE: Crew
DECISION RULE: 20-30 minutes after lunch is enough time for crew.
SYSTEM: Incentive
STRUCTURE: Banking Seat Time
DECISION RULE: It’s okay if you get it later.
SYSTEM: Information
STRUCTURE: IEPs arrive or don’t
DECISION RULE: IEPs aren’t useful – file and forget
SYSTEM: Assessment
STRUCTURE: Up to crew leaders to oversee progress
DECISION RULE: We’ll get it from the subject area teachers anyway.
Others (couldn’t categorize)
Apprenticeships
Kids will educate themselves and we don’t have to know them.
60% of time is outside of school and it’s not academic time.
My son is in karate.
What messages could be sent that would impact one of the above decision rules? We looked at “seat time is banked” and “it’s okay if you get it later.”
Possible alternative messages
You have to get it now. It’s not okay to get it later.
Just give them 10 credits each year. (message: don’t worry about the credits)
Give them all 40 credits on day one. (message: don’t worry about the credits)
Don’t be concerned with 4 year graduation rate and tell everyone (message: time doesn’t matter and we’re explicit about it)
You have to earn credits and there are an extremely limited number of performance expectations this is tied to. (message: you have to earn it but it’s not a big deal).
By the way, why bother with all this stuff? Check out
http://world.std.com/~lo/WhyLO.html
Why is this a problem? The message “out there” is that kids should graduate in 4 years.
Why is that a problem? It hurts our viability (invites mandates and micromanaging)
Name of disease? Arrogance (although I still have difficulty with this one – see earlier post…I prefer fear, uncertainty)
So, everyone is acting in accordance with some message. What would that message be?
Message? “This is as good as it gets. The model takes time. We’re dancing as fast as we can.”
What would we have to believe for this message to be true?
Belief? Time does not matter.
What structures and decision rules support this belief? (This bears further fleshing out as we had limited time by design)
SYSTEM: Distribution
STRUCTURE: Crew
DECISION RULE: 20-30 minutes after lunch is enough time for crew.
SYSTEM: Incentive
STRUCTURE: Banking Seat Time
DECISION RULE: It’s okay if you get it later.
SYSTEM: Information
STRUCTURE: IEPs arrive or don’t
DECISION RULE: IEPs aren’t useful – file and forget
SYSTEM: Assessment
STRUCTURE: Up to crew leaders to oversee progress
DECISION RULE: We’ll get it from the subject area teachers anyway.
Others (couldn’t categorize)
Apprenticeships
Kids will educate themselves and we don’t have to know them.
60% of time is outside of school and it’s not academic time.
My son is in karate.
What messages could be sent that would impact one of the above decision rules? We looked at “seat time is banked” and “it’s okay if you get it later.”
Possible alternative messages
You have to get it now. It’s not okay to get it later.
Just give them 10 credits each year. (message: don’t worry about the credits)
Give them all 40 credits on day one. (message: don’t worry about the credits)
Don’t be concerned with 4 year graduation rate and tell everyone (message: time doesn’t matter and we’re explicit about it)
You have to earn credits and there are an extremely limited number of performance expectations this is tied to. (message: you have to earn it but it’s not a big deal).
By the way, why bother with all this stuff? Check out
http://world.std.com/~lo/WhyLO.html
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Credits - Thought Experiment2
How many distinct statements are in our performance expectations? Hundreds?
What if we limited each page to one statement -- only one expectation per page -- and this was tied to our 40 credits?
In that way,
1. We have a link between credits and some meaning we attach to them.
2. We have a built in metric for school improvement - how many more statements can we add for the second graduating class, the third, and so on ?
3. We have very few things to norm.
One (not the only) reason we have so many performance expectations was to give flexibility. But perhaps there are too many choices. Having too many things "up for grabs" is ultimately debilitating. It doesn't help as we intended it too, it stresses out everyone.
Check this link for a review by Orson Scott Card of the book "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-02-20-1.html
Michael
What if we limited each page to one statement -- only one expectation per page -- and this was tied to our 40 credits?
In that way,
1. We have a link between credits and some meaning we attach to them.
2. We have a built in metric for school improvement - how many more statements can we add for the second graduating class, the third, and so on ?
3. We have very few things to norm.
One (not the only) reason we have so many performance expectations was to give flexibility. But perhaps there are too many choices. Having too many things "up for grabs" is ultimately debilitating. It doesn't help as we intended it too, it stresses out everyone.
Check this link for a review by Orson Scott Card of the book "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-02-20-1.html
Michael
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Credits and Philosophy (?)
Thought Experiment: What if we awarded all 40 or 44 credits or whatever students need to graduate to all the 11th graders. That's it. They are done credit-wise. (Of course, Regents must be passed).
I'll sidestep issues of motivation for the moment (i.e, the argument that they wouldn't be motivated to do anything we asked them to do --- an argument that reflects what the speaker himself or herself really thinks of students and the work we are doing in school).
The result (again if tests were passed) would be graduating a large number of kids...many of whom we would say didn't do what we really wanted them to do OR didn't learn much OR don't have the skills a high school graduate ought to have.
If you agree with this line of thinking, my next question is: so what?
So what if kids graduate at this point in time not having really done what we wanted them to do, or learning much or having skills? My own response is that it depends on (1) why the situation occurred and (2) how we relate to what we do about it in the future.
(1) Why did it occur (in this thought experiment)
IF it occurred because we have an attitude that "this is as good as it gets" and we don't have any higher expectations for our kids, then we have a problem in my opinion. This is not a school I want to be a part of.
HOWEVER, if it occurred because in our striving for constant improvement, this is what we did this time and we understand we are not yet good enough at our model, then it seems more acceptable to me that we do this. If we aren't good enough yet, someone has to pay the cost. Why should it be the student? Why should our inability translate to extra years in high school for a student? Why not bear the brunt of that cost ourselves by saying openly that of our graduating class only x % met the standards. Which brings me to....
(2) How we relate to what we do about it in the future
IF we say, there's nothing more we can do then it's a problem for me.
HOWEVER, if we use the x % of the first graduating class as a metric and set school improvement goals beyond that and hold ourselves to that then we can always get better. In 5 years we can graduate students where 90-100 % meet our standards (for example). But why should we hold ourselves to that standard for our first graduating class.
What do you think? I'm very interested in comments on this topic. Oh yeah...think of this: How different would our graduating class be (some who met and some who didn't meet the standards) from graduating classes around the city? the country? If we're worried about the consequence to the student -- what consequences and how would we prevent them if we kept kids longer?
I'll sidestep issues of motivation for the moment (i.e, the argument that they wouldn't be motivated to do anything we asked them to do --- an argument that reflects what the speaker himself or herself really thinks of students and the work we are doing in school).
The result (again if tests were passed) would be graduating a large number of kids...many of whom we would say didn't do what we really wanted them to do OR didn't learn much OR don't have the skills a high school graduate ought to have.
If you agree with this line of thinking, my next question is: so what?
So what if kids graduate at this point in time not having really done what we wanted them to do, or learning much or having skills? My own response is that it depends on (1) why the situation occurred and (2) how we relate to what we do about it in the future.
(1) Why did it occur (in this thought experiment)
IF it occurred because we have an attitude that "this is as good as it gets" and we don't have any higher expectations for our kids, then we have a problem in my opinion. This is not a school I want to be a part of.
HOWEVER, if it occurred because in our striving for constant improvement, this is what we did this time and we understand we are not yet good enough at our model, then it seems more acceptable to me that we do this. If we aren't good enough yet, someone has to pay the cost. Why should it be the student? Why should our inability translate to extra years in high school for a student? Why not bear the brunt of that cost ourselves by saying openly that of our graduating class only x % met the standards. Which brings me to....
(2) How we relate to what we do about it in the future
IF we say, there's nothing more we can do then it's a problem for me.
HOWEVER, if we use the x % of the first graduating class as a metric and set school improvement goals beyond that and hold ourselves to that then we can always get better. In 5 years we can graduate students where 90-100 % meet our standards (for example). But why should we hold ourselves to that standard for our first graduating class.
What do you think? I'm very interested in comments on this topic. Oh yeah...think of this: How different would our graduating class be (some who met and some who didn't meet the standards) from graduating classes around the city? the country? If we're worried about the consequence to the student -- what consequences and how would we prevent them if we kept kids longer?
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Changing Instruction / Behavior
There is nothing wrong with any of the following and in fact may be great ideas:
<<>>
BUT, am I the only one that thinks this has something to do with instruction or the educational interaction between the crew leader and student?
For example:
>>"We agreed that every teacher will have a specific concept in mind (as a learning goal) when they are conferencing with a student and will go through the I DO/You WATCH through YOU DO/I WATCH model." OR
>> "We agreed that all students will be in cooperative learning groups and each will be taught explicit roles to play as they check in on each other's learning with crew leader facilitation." OR
>> "We agreed that a 'bridging' activity will be used with every major concept (2 or 3 per quarter) to help forge a connection between new concepts and prior knowledge. The Building Background Knowledge sequence can be used as a bridging activity."
These samples address teacher behavior in the instructional interaction. I don't see any of that in the recommendations. Either that's because (1) y'all don't really think that's at issue -- fine, then let's discuss further or (2) y'all think you ARE doing it by doing the above -- then I need to understand better or (3) y'all agree but it's hard and all the above is a form of work avoidance.
I'm interested in where people are at with this.Michael
<<
BUT, am I the only one that thinks this has something to do with instruction or the educational interaction between the crew leader and student?
For example:
>>"We agreed that every teacher will have a specific concept in mind (as a learning goal) when they are conferencing with a student and will go through the I DO/You WATCH through YOU DO/I WATCH model." OR
>> "We agreed that all students will be in cooperative learning groups and each will be taught explicit roles to play as they check in on each other's learning with crew leader facilitation." OR
>> "We agreed that a 'bridging' activity will be used with every major concept (2 or 3 per quarter) to help forge a connection between new concepts and prior knowledge. The Building Background Knowledge sequence can be used as a bridging activity."
These samples address teacher behavior in the instructional interaction. I don't see any of that in the recommendations. Either that's because (1) y'all don't really think that's at issue -- fine, then let's discuss further or (2) y'all think you ARE doing it by doing the above -- then I need to understand better or (3) y'all agree but it's hard and all the above is a form of work avoidance.
I'm interested in where people are at with this.Michael
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Analysis of "Problem" - class notes
What's the problem?: 68% undercredited 11th graders?
Why is that a problem?: We're supposed to graduate kids in 4 years...so says society.
What about this is of most concern to us?: Eventually we'll be labeled a failure, loss of freedom = constraints on our capacity to work.
[I would like to dig deeper than this. What are we working on that we believe in so much that constraints would be a problem OR are we just concerned for personal freedom regardless of results?]
If these were symptoms of some disease, what would the disease be called?: Arrogance.
[This doesn't resonate with me. I think it's something like "fear" ].
Imagine there were a solution...what would it have to do to affect [the disease]?
We said, "the solution would have to help us see that our arrogance was getting in the way of student's learning and that external constraints were not a problem." It's US not THEM.
After Birdsell's presentation we were pushed to come up with a message that would forward the solution. We had "one kid at a time" and "In 4 years." [I'm not sure about either and would like to keep looking].
We need a message that addresses the disease (assuming proper identification of disease), causes actions / behaviors different than what we have been doing, and provides the lift we need. Think about how it affects decision rules. Think about how it can be implemented in any situation. What does the audience believe that makes them favorable towards this message? What does the audience believe that makes them unfavorable?
Martin Van Buren and Chester Arthur were the missing presidents.
Michael
Why is that a problem?: We're supposed to graduate kids in 4 years...so says society.
What about this is of most concern to us?: Eventually we'll be labeled a failure, loss of freedom = constraints on our capacity to work.
[I would like to dig deeper than this. What are we working on that we believe in so much that constraints would be a problem OR are we just concerned for personal freedom regardless of results?]
If these were symptoms of some disease, what would the disease be called?: Arrogance.
[This doesn't resonate with me. I think it's something like "fear" ].
Imagine there were a solution...what would it have to do to affect [the disease]?
We said, "the solution would have to help us see that our arrogance was getting in the way of student's learning and that external constraints were not a problem." It's US not THEM.
After Birdsell's presentation we were pushed to come up with a message that would forward the solution. We had "one kid at a time" and "In 4 years." [I'm not sure about either and would like to keep looking].
We need a message that addresses the disease (assuming proper identification of disease), causes actions / behaviors different than what we have been doing, and provides the lift we need. Think about how it affects decision rules. Think about how it can be implemented in any situation. What does the audience believe that makes them favorable towards this message? What does the audience believe that makes them unfavorable?
Martin Van Buren and Chester Arthur were the missing presidents.
Michael
Collecting Data / Taking Action
James has added the credit accumulation from every report card that Al sent me. Some staff's report cards are missing. This spreadsheet has been emailed to Al.
James is currently inputting the POL scores.
I think that as long as the data is provided to me (and much I have) we have the time to input the data.
I'm afraid that the we may allow ourselves to be seduced by inputting data or creating new systems (i.e., new graduation plans) without taking direct action on the core issue of the undercredited 11th graders: instruction.
I believe we have all the systems we need but they are not all implemented (i.e, does each student have internalized what their learning plans say...are they real live plans of action OR does each student have a rich project connected to their apprenticeship?). Inventing new systems may be enticing while not addressing the hardest work.
I would like to hear about what actions are being taken in the classroom and in the interactions with students. What are people trying out? What results do we see? How will we track those results (I suggest grids...another system in place but underused)?
Any thoughts? Debate?
James is currently inputting the POL scores.
I think that as long as the data is provided to me (and much I have) we have the time to input the data.
I'm afraid that the we may allow ourselves to be seduced by inputting data or creating new systems (i.e., new graduation plans) without taking direct action on the core issue of the undercredited 11th graders: instruction.
I believe we have all the systems we need but they are not all implemented (i.e, does each student have internalized what their learning plans say...are they real live plans of action OR does each student have a rich project connected to their apprenticeship?). Inventing new systems may be enticing while not addressing the hardest work.
I would like to hear about what actions are being taken in the classroom and in the interactions with students. What are people trying out? What results do we see? How will we track those results (I suggest grids...another system in place but underused)?
Any thoughts? Debate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
