Nitty-Gritty

Grit. It's a word that is thrown around quite often in the world of education. It's the word of the moment. Despite its recent pop culture explosion, grit is a concept I buy into wholeheartedly. Here's why.

Grit is the single most predictive factor of success, as told by Angela Duckworth and her research with the University of Pennsylvania. Despite this, Grit is something typically overlooked in the American public school system.  From what I've observed, the bulk of what we value as educators, is "accuracy, correctness." This mindset not only shortchanges students, but also reduces the educational process. Students who frequently get the answers right are often missing this essential life skill. There will be a time when these students don't know the answer and don't know how to find it.

I've often heard this tale in Algebra 1. Students sailed through elementary and middle school math with A's, then by midyear in Algebra 1, they are lost. They don't know how to study for math, because they never had to. Frequently, this snowballs into lower math grades, feelings of frustration,  and most significantly, a lack of willingness to put in the time and effort needed to learn the material.  

"The other behavior that seems to explain why grit is a marker of future success is deliberate practice. Deliberate practice is the sort of practice experts to do improve...In the National Spelling Bee, for example, gritty finalists log more hours of deliberate practice, and this time uniquely predicts final ranking whereas less effortful and more pleasurable forms of practice do not" (Duckworth). It is obvious, for long-term goals which demand a continued practice and attention to skill, grittier individuals will exceed their peers. The question becomes, how do we instill grit in our students? Is it inborn or is it something that can be cultivated over time? In my classroom, there are small adjustments I've made in an effort to promote grit. 

First, an assignment is never truly considered "done." I put a grade in the system, return work to my classes, but students can revise and rewrite to their hearts' content.  I see no problem with allowing a student multiple opportunities to improve his/her work. As long as this continued effort doesn't interfere with the class period at hand, there are no problems. Second, in a question and answer session, I try not to move on when I hear the answer I want;  I probe, inquire further, and encourage students to challenge each other's thoughts.  There is often a "right answer," but why not push the student to think further?  The word "elaborate" works wonders in a class discussion. Lastly, a major project that requires precision and time is a unique approach to promoting grit. Last year, my students completed a large mural based on the work of Sol Lewitt.  Although it was "easy" work, it was evident that most honors students did not have the grit to master the product. They were impatient, hasty, and made simple mistakes because of their lack of sustained effort and precision. Large-scale projects like this are messy and ambitious to implement and manage, but the student perspective that can be gained is unparalleled. In any classroom, designing assignments that require slow work and precision is a great way to harness grit.

The willingness to struggle through a seemingly impossible task is not only an academic skill, it is a life skill. Character is built in moments of frustration, anger, and failure...moments which often evade our brightest students until they reach high school, or for some, college. It's not to say that there is no merit in positive reinforcement, there absolutely is, but the stamina that comes from sustained effort and the momentum it builds has a decisively more substantial impact on a student's life. Motivation is often what eludes so many of our students and promoting gritty activities can help build true, intrinsic motivation which lasts and extends beyond the classroom walls. Whether through a job application process, a difficult time with family, or a time-consuming project, grit makes navigating demanding tasks much easier. 

The idea may seem trendy, but the heart of this dogma is at the core of American culture. As LaBoeuf said in True Grit, "You'll find I go ahead with what I start."

"The Duckworth Lab." Research Statement. University of Pennsylvania, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.

"True Grit" (1969). IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.

The Complexities of Simplicity: The Importance of Common Core Aligned Curriculum Planning and Implementation

Comic by Scott Adams

It stands to reason that the simplest explanation for some unknown phenomena is probably the best explanation.  This concept, known as Occam’s Razor, has been used to eschew excesses from theories, and was even used as an explanation for the existence of God. This reliance on simplicity however, can sometimes be lost on the true application of the idea:

“Occam's razor is often wrongly applied. The key is the the phrase "praeter necessitatem" in the Latin formula. Not all complications are forbidden. On the contrary, complications necessary to cover the facts are not only allowed but required. However simple or even beautiful a theory may be, if it does not cover the facts, it is not viable. A complex theory may be a sign that the thing it is trying to explain is not yet deeply understood. But it may also be the correct explanation of a genuinely complex phenomenon” (The Principle of Simplicity).

While it is tempting to view the planning of curriculum as a simple, step-by-step process, it is important to not lose focus on the fact that proper curriculum planning is an incredibly important, and incredibly complicated task. The design and implementation of curriculum is a highly difficult and nuanced process that requires an understanding of student learning styles, proper implementation and review, and an evaluation system that tracks efficacy. While the introduction of the Common Core State Standards may seem to be a panacea in the process, thorough work must still be done at both the educational and administrative levels for it to be implemented properly.

The topic of learning styles, and the many different approaches that have been taken over the years, have given educators a wealth (perhaps and overabundance) of psychological and philosophical approaches to instruction.  This makes the planning stages of the curriculum especially difficult when we take a standards-based approach.The educators and supervisors involved in the decision making process must take into account the idea that not all students learn in the same manner, and therefore, the curriculum must reflect both this understanding, as well as guide the construction of frameworks that provide this necessary differentiation. There is a general consensus in education that “Learning theorists and researchers have not arrived at a universally accepted, precise definition of learning” (Parkay, et al., 189). This is a potentially disturbing admission for those that consider themselves educators.  What must be understood by curriculum planners, before anything else, is that the curriculum will be implemented upon students of vastly different backgrounds, shema, and learning styles. “A program should strive for the optimal match between learner capacity and level of experiences provided. Some children have greater facility with abstract thought, critical reasoning and meta–cognitive skills than others (Braggett et al., 1999). This means that to avoid underachievement a curriculum needs to be developed that will both challenge and stimulate students appropriately” (Differentiating the Curriculum). To not take this into account, is to guarantee the weakening of any curriculum that is produced.

The supervisors in charge of the curriculum design process must be sure not to simplify or overly downplay the significance of each curricular decision, as it is there job to ensure proper implementation of the curriculum after it has been accepted.  Failure to act in the developmental design stages of the curriculum will almost certainly result in a flawed and therefore ineffective document. The Common Core Standards are able to fill an important gap in the implementation and design of the curriculum.  As most school districts use a “Backwards Design” model of curricular planning, the standards become the jumping off point.  The more clear and precise these standards are, the more likely the prescribed curriculum becomes the enacted curriculum. Too often, this process is short-changed. “Jumping from the standards to create lesson plans misses a crucial middle step of developing a coherent curriculum. The absence of this more complex work of creating a local curricular framework for the district, which informs the sequence and breadth of instruction (usually referred to as “scope and sequence”), will result in weak implementation of Common Core” (Honig).  Using the CCSS correctly, and determining them as the basis for subsequent discussion of scope and sequence at each grade level subject simplifies the process of planning, and makes the implementation more clear for those tasked with using it on a daily basis.

In order to determine the success of the curriculum, supervisors need to be vigilant in collecting data that concerns the efficacy of the program.  Is it being properly implemented?  Are their benchmark assessments? Are PLC’s functioning in making the curriculum stronger? Do teachers understand that the curriculum is a document that by all means evolves over the course of its existence? The state of New Jersey released a Powerpoint to principals and supervisors during a recent professional development. In addition to the many pages of common sense approaches to CCSS and curriculum evaluation, they recommended a prioritized list of goals for every school district in terms of curricular evaluation:

“On the three highest priorities:

1. Ensure that a coherent curriculum with standards selected by a team of teachers is actually taught and tested with common assessments.”

Clearly, the State takes great interest in the supervision of instruction as it relates to curricular alignment, as well as the use of Common Assessments to achieve this end.  Teachers will do themselves a great service by routinely discussing in their Professional Learning Communities the type of instruction they are using, and the data that backs its efficacy.  So to must administrators be present in these meetings as a way to guarantee that this work is being done, and has become an accepted practice in their building.

While the Common Core provides us with a useful and unifying framework at the start of the curriculum planning process, it must not be seen as the curriculum itself.  That work must be undertaken by group of educators, administrators, and community members tasked with its success.  Only by starting off with and understanding of student learning styles, developing and implementing the curriculum through shared outcomes and common assessments, and ensuring the implementation is occurring through proper supervision, will the curriculum designed by these stakeholders do what it has been tasked with, namely, increasing the education of the students it serves.

References

"Differentiating the Curriculum." Differentiating the curriculum. NSW Department of Education and Communities, n.d. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/policies/gats/programs/differentiate/>

"Shifting Gears! Using the CCSS, PARCC and Educator Evaluation to Drive Student Achievement." . State of New Jersey, n.d. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://www.state.nj.us/education/sca/ppt/gears/MSUPricipal.pdf>.

"Understanding History | The Principle of Simplicity." Understanding History | The Principle of Simplicity. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/simplicity.html>.

Honig, Bill. "Coherent and sequenced curriculum key to implementing Common Core standards." EdSource Today. EdSource, 29 Jan. 2014. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://edsource.org/2014/coherent-and-sequenced-curriculum-key-to-implementing-common-core-standards/56704#.U5kFXZSwIjA>.

Parkay, Forrest W.. Curriculum Leadership: Readings for Developing Quality Educational Programs. 9th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2010. Print.

Butterflies, Hurricanes, and Curricular Intent: Working Back to the Individual in Curricular Design

There is a metaphor based in Chaos Theory, known as the “sensitive dependence on initial conditions” which we commonly know today as the “Butterfly Effect”. In this metaphor, a butterfly flaps its wings in one part of the world, leading to a series of events that culminate in the creation of a hurricane. This concept of both the importance of a starting point, and the possible drastic effect of seemingly small actions, on the surface, may be used to relate to the design of curriculum in school districts.  This metaphor is further bolstered by the idea that a “useful starting point when studying what is curriculum is to consider three levels,namely the ‘planned curriculum’, the ‘enacted curriculum’ and the ‘experienced curriculum’ “(Marsh, pg. 3).  When combined with the flapping of the butterfly’s wings, this idea seems to paint a picture that there can be almost no way to adequately predict or enforce the way that a curriculum will affect the students it is enacted for, but nothing could be further from the truth.  The metaphor instead must be used as a catalyst, that ensures we as curriculum planners are taking into consideration both the three perceived levels of curriculum, as well as those affected by it’s implementation. Curriculum design must start in the abstract, with goals and values, respond to needs of groups and social forces, and then become refined by understandings of Human Development. In other words, the more we move toward curricular implementation, the more we must begin to think of the individual student. After this initial work is completed however, the refinement and cyclical adjustment of the curriculum must take place.

From the start, the conversations that lead to frameworks of curriculum design must begin with the Goals and Values the district and community espouse. “The goals or purposes of a curriculum are among the most significant criteria for guiding the curriculum planning process” (Parkay, pg. 5). As it relates to the three levels of curriculum, this stage is most aligned with the Planned curriculum, as decisions and ideas during this time are confined, as they should be, to abstract ideas.  This phase of planning is the furthest removed from the individual student, and takes into account first, the greater overall needs of the district itself.

As the Goals and Ideas are fleshed out, the next area of consideration becomes the social forces that are guiding the process.  Financial, political, and social realities must be taken into account at this time, as we move from abstraction to enactment. The three levels of these social forces include the national and international level, the local community level, and the cultural level, and within these are further specific and delineated influencers (Parkay, pg. 57-58).  To plan a curriculum in a vacuum is not only foolish, but detrimental to those it is intended to serve, and ignoring the social realities will result in an enacted curriculum that has almost no chance of being experienced by the students.

After these forces have been taken into account, and the represented forces or groups are represented in the curriculum, the ability to hone the process down to the individual learner can take place.  The work done in regard to the Human Development of students will create the level of curriculum most closely tied to the Experienced Curriculum. James Comer explains that “[w]e will be able to create a successful system of education nationwide only when we base everything we do on what is known about how children and youths develop and learn” (Comer via Parkay, pg. 132). In this regard, the final act of the process prior to roll out, is to do the research on the individual needs of our student populations, to ensure that we are including structures and experiences that will have the highest likelihood of success.  One of the most ethical way of ensuring that this happens is through differentiation practices, and an RTI (Response To Intervention) tiered program that is built to adapt to the specific learner and his or her needs. Only by creating structures within the curriculum that address the developmental needs of children can we be sure they are being exposed to the original intent of the curriculum document.

The major folly that can occur at this point is what destroys the original intent of the Butterfly Effect metaphor.  None of these events exist as a singularity in time.  In order for the process of curriculum design to be both effective and ethical, it must retain the three levels though a constant cyclical reassessment process.  To believe that the decisions that are made at any level of the process as set in stone, is to render the document worthless. Analyzing the Goals and Values of the curriculum, the Social Forces that influence it, and the role that Human development plays in its enactment, is the only way to maintain the curriculum as effective. What we can learn from the Butterfly Effect metaphor is that we must be vigilant and self-reflective of the unintended consequences of our decisions, and have a plan in place to change and alter those decisions in a swift and efficient manner.  By moving from whole to part, from abstract to concrete individual, and repeating the process through a design loop, we create the atmosphere for powerful curriculum design, that is human in its application.

References

Marsh, Colin J.. Key concepts for Understanding Curriculum. London: Falmer Press, 2007. Print.

Parkay, Forrest W.. Curriculum leadership: readings for developing quality educational programs. 9th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2010. Print.