No, I am not the expert referenced in the title but here are some things I took away from our recent professional development with Mike Mattos. My opening statement reminds me of the Star Wars line, "These are not the droids you're looking for." Every child needs high levels of learning. Mike said education needs to prepare kids to become adults. It is about their future and not simply to let them survive; it is to help them to thrive. This equates to high school plus. That means beyond a diploma and life long learning. Another point is that we must focus on skills and knowledge and not grades and points. Mattos said, "You can only judge good teaching by what you can see the kids do". His formula for learning was explained as targeted instruction+time=learning. Learning has to be the constant and not the variable. This is relative to the concept that learning is not negotiable; it is expected. Rick DuFour has said, "Learn or else".
Mike believes any kid can learn if provided a guaranteed curriculum with clearly identified essential learnings. He made the point that this becomes a matter of teach less and learn more since all students need access to essential grade level standards. The question is, what do we do if kids don't learn (PLC Question 3)? His answer is systematic interventions which transcend time. This causes us, as professionals, to be creative and overcome the barriers of time. Many students need the ability to experience more than a year's growth in a year's time or they never bridge the achievement gap. One of the first pieces to identifying the issue for a struggling student is to determine whether it is a motivation or a skill problem. Both can be rectified.
Mike urged us to take more responsibility for what we can control. We have to determine the hills to defend until the last. Insomuch this is the guarantee of the grade level standards narrowed to the most essential learnings. In order to accomplish this we must rely on effective collaboration and the ability to reflect on common formative assessments. Remember that a score or average performance of a class is meaningless unless compared to some reference point. He used the example of 80%. Alone it tell you nothing and is only a number; however, when compared to other teachers with 54% and 58%, 80% looks pretty good. Conversely, if compared to 93% and 97%, the class average of 80% may be suspect and in need of major improvement. It takes courage and strong reflection to compare and discuss but it is the right work. It is good work and the work worth doing. The ultimate goal of assessment is to measure learning and not teaching. Major themes for Mike are highly effective collaboration via PLCs and timely, targeted, systematic interventions for ALL kids who struggle (RtI). Even our high performing kids should struggle from time to time in a healthy manner which should be indicative of rigor. They too deserve such support and interventions.
I know that after hearing Mike I felt validated with the direction CPCSC is going and the job our great staff does. I was also able to find where I can be a better educator as well. After the professional development day, I was moved to want to learn more about how I can help kids.
Posted by John Schilawski 1.7.15
Mike believes any kid can learn if provided a guaranteed curriculum with clearly identified essential learnings. He made the point that this becomes a matter of teach less and learn more since all students need access to essential grade level standards. The question is, what do we do if kids don't learn (PLC Question 3)? His answer is systematic interventions which transcend time. This causes us, as professionals, to be creative and overcome the barriers of time. Many students need the ability to experience more than a year's growth in a year's time or they never bridge the achievement gap. One of the first pieces to identifying the issue for a struggling student is to determine whether it is a motivation or a skill problem. Both can be rectified.
Mike urged us to take more responsibility for what we can control. We have to determine the hills to defend until the last. Insomuch this is the guarantee of the grade level standards narrowed to the most essential learnings. In order to accomplish this we must rely on effective collaboration and the ability to reflect on common formative assessments. Remember that a score or average performance of a class is meaningless unless compared to some reference point. He used the example of 80%. Alone it tell you nothing and is only a number; however, when compared to other teachers with 54% and 58%, 80% looks pretty good. Conversely, if compared to 93% and 97%, the class average of 80% may be suspect and in need of major improvement. It takes courage and strong reflection to compare and discuss but it is the right work. It is good work and the work worth doing. The ultimate goal of assessment is to measure learning and not teaching. Major themes for Mike are highly effective collaboration via PLCs and timely, targeted, systematic interventions for ALL kids who struggle (RtI). Even our high performing kids should struggle from time to time in a healthy manner which should be indicative of rigor. They too deserve such support and interventions.
I know that after hearing Mike I felt validated with the direction CPCSC is going and the job our great staff does. I was also able to find where I can be a better educator as well. After the professional development day, I was moved to want to learn more about how I can help kids.
Posted by John Schilawski 1.7.15