But I'm currently on Spring Break so I have a little time on my hands. Despite it being smack-dab in the middle of STAAR-prep season, I have refused to put any energy into "work-related" things such as data crunching, initial instruction, mini-lessons, etc. I won't deny my mind has taken me there a few times and I've fought it off like a wasp. I have occasionally browsed on Pinterest this week (I'll be honest) for some cool stuff to add to my office. Like, I found this great Strip Diagram Anchor chart that would be ideal when convincing newbie teachers to "STEP AWAY FROM KEY WORDS" and teach models for word problems!
So thanks to whomever out there created this! I have seen some other versions, but I like this one most and plan to replace the current one in my office with this one! :)
Other than that, I have been occasionally guilty of tweeting some #MathPhotoADayChallenge pictures. I must admit the nerd in me made me do it! Here are a few of my posts:
Talk about me if you want. But it's my duty to "keep up" with what's trending. (laughs to myself)
I must admit, I don't dabble too often in the Twitter chats that occur around 8pm each night, but I do appreciate the retweets from my PLN concerning what's relevant in Math, Education and Instruction. One retweet in particular had me brainstorming the other night:
My heart got super twisted over this statement? Why? Well for a few reasons:
1. Many schools today get super involved over "what the data reads". Data is easily used to prove whether or not student growth is occurring and/or gauging the instruction in the classroom.
2. Some of the "strengthening" schools must grow roots (solid instruction) before they grow branches (evidence occurs in data). Just because a school is showing high data, doesn't mean great instruction is occurring in the classrooms.
As a coach who is digging her nails deep into research surrounding interventions, formative assessments (and other initial instruction best practices), coaching teams, modeling practices, desegregating data and leading small groups (just a few of my duties each week); I find myself STILL getting sidetracked when the data drops after a major assessment and it somehow reflects regression rather than progression.
How is this happening when our work in PLC is focused on building common formative assessments, backwards design, embedding/implementing best practices in initial instruction and immediate response to instruction is occurring during our small groups? How?
How is it that a program that has recently been re-structured, carefully planned and embodies growth-mindset teachers working heavily at the core, somehow continually seems to encounter what seems like failure after failure?
Here's my only resolve. I will NOT let up on strong Tier 1 instruction. Schools suffering from top-heavy Tiers (where Tier 3 is more like 30% than 5%; Tier 2 is closer to 60% instead of 15% and only 10% of your students are at Tier 1) often produce programs suffering from years of shaky and faulty foundation. This cannot be fixed through interventions any more than a pill be expected to fix a congenital heart failure issue.
It must be approached delicately, with patience, a long-term plan that has layers and commitment that entails persistent efforts. Systems must be put in place:
- Sound curriculum & aligned assessments
- PD centered around unpacking TEKs, vertical alignment of teams and assessment writing
- Roll outs of elements of Strong Tier 1 instruction
- Low turn-over so those elements don't fly out the revolving doors each summer
- Growth-mindset teachers implementing those efforts with fidelity
- Consistency in those elements
- Vertical alignment in those efforts
Then, and only then, can Tier 1 instruction be strengthened enough to show significant and sustainable growth in data. One must allow a few years before one can see evidence in data. Until then, however, there will always be highs, lows, inconsistent jumps, and regression.
I don't just believe that the best schools focus on Tier 1 instruction, but the best leaders (instructional) leaders must keep this their focus. For the moment a leader is pressured (by data, district personnel or defeat) and turns their attention towards intervention, they have turned against the very antidote to their dilemma.
