Schools

When performing market research for a school, it is very common to interview older alumni and hear how the school should be more like when the alum was attending.  Questions like: Why isn’t the school enrollment as large as when I went here?  Why don’t you get more nuns/priests/brothers? Why does it cost so much more than when I went here?  The school administration sighs and wishes the alums would face the realities of today.

The other thing that often happens when I am interviewing constituencies, especially parents, is they complain about directions the school is taking: Why did they change the math textbook?  What’s with this silly new furniture?  Why is my child watching videos instead of doing homework?

What has occurred to me is the school administrators will object about alumni living in the past, and then they themselves will continue to operate the school as in the old days – when parents assumed what the school did was appropriate and never thought to challenge curricular issues.  Well, it’s a new day all around.  Parents are much more savvy consumers and much more interested in even minute details about their child’s life – especially as regards education.

In focus groups I lead where these type of questions occur, and if appropriate, I explain why bouncy chairs help concentration or briefly explain the philosophy behind a flipped classroom.  Almost universally, the parents ask: Why didn’t they tell us that?  Or even better, say: Well, that makes sense.  We can’t make changes, even seemingly simple ones, without letting the appropriate constituency (this often applies to the faculty and staff as well) know what is happening, when and why.  It takes extra work and might seem “unnecessary” because certainly the administrator knows what she/he is doing, but to operate without detailed and timely communication is not facing the realities of today.

Rick Pendergast

In today’s digital age, there is in my opinion, an appropriate amount of emphasis placed on increasing student engagement. Wonderful tools, such as the eleot, exist to accurately measure student engagement in the learning process. As an educational consultant, my research in schools typically uncovers a common reality: many teachers utilize web 1.0 tools and dip their toes into the water of web 2.0 tools while students are masters of web 2.0 tools and are dipping their toes into the water of web 3.0. 

Peppered within school are teachers who have taken a deep dive into the digital water and are using web 2.0 tools to  impact  learning in the classroom.  However, in some cases teachers may find a web 2.0 tool and then use it unceasingly. The overuse makes it less effective in increasing student engagement. This was often the case when Prezi replaced Power Point in classrooms across the country.  Even more common is the practice of having students put away their devices so they can better pay attention to the teacher.  Certainly, access to a device alone doesn’t increase student engagement. Key to effective use of web 2.0 tools is teachers and students being co-creators of content and partners in the learning process.

Whenever I observe, reflect on, or provide feedback to a school on their use of technology to increase student engagement and enhance learning, I often reference the work of Eric Sheninger. His book, Digital Leadership: Changing Paradigms for Changing Times, provides wonderful examples of the technological trends and how the use of technology can impact the learning taking place in classrooms today.  Even the often-confused understanding of the difference between web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 is broken down simply as: web 1.0 is informational, 2.0 is relational and 3.0 is anticipatory (preface, xxi).

Perhaps this is our starting point within a school. Schools leaders that have been successful in this area utilize a common metric to provide teachers with feedback such as the RAT framework used in conjunction with a tool such as the eleot to support teachers in achieving a baseline of information to assess their own use of web 2.0 tools. From there they empower them to seek out best practices and give them the time necessary to learn how to integrate the digital tools into their classroom instruction. 

As much as we may want to resist it and ask the students to put away their devices, we need to better prepare students to work in a technology rich and technology driven world. What resources are you finding helpful in this area of challenge and promise?

Dr. Jackie Lichter

I am currently reading for a second time, The Power of Moments: Why Certain Experiences Have Extraordinary Impact, by Heath & Heath. It explores the examples and research on how some brief encounters or experiences can strike us, impress, affect, and change us. The first time I read it through the lens of my own personal experiences and walked away with a renewed sense of the importance of the weekly family dinner ritual in our home. This time, the connections I am making to this topic are exploring ways to help those I serve in my work as a consultant to assist them in creating defining moments in the constituencies they serve. Heath & Heath’s research suggests there are specific defining moments in our lives that create meaningful experiences that ultimately stand out in our memories (p. 4). And, that people’s defining moments share common elements. More specifically, moments of elevation, insight, pride and connection.

Recently, I sat down with a person serving as the Director of Admissions. She shared with me that 65 students applied to the school, 43 were accepted and 25 enrolled. I asked what the current practice was in alerting a student that his/her application was accepted. She said the parents receive an email.  If we apply the research of the power of moments to this process, could the school  be missing an opportunity to create a defining moment that might possibly increase the likelihood the child enrolls? Why not capitalize on the element of pride, elevation or even connection?

Here are some examples of ways a school could create a defining moment for parents and their children:

•  How about sending a personalized video to the child and his/her parents announcing the good news?
• Or perhaps create a frame with the school’s name and mascot on it for the family to post on social media with a hashtag such as #futurestudent.
• Add in to the announcement, as Heath & Heath suggest, some school swag to further help the child feel part of the family.

Soon you elevate the moment. In reality, the moments of elevation are applicable to all aspects of the admissions process.

• Applications can go live at an announced day and time creating an increased level of anticipation.
• A photo board could list the accepted students as “members of the class of …,” as if one were listing members of the cast for the upcoming musical. Current students could be listed as back again for the second season cast members. 

Regardless of what you language you use, the goal is to create the sense of pride, insight, elevation and connection that ultimately stands out as a defining moment in the life of the student. What a world it would be if we all were centered on creating powerful moments for one another.

Dr. Jackie Lichter

Let me tell you about a boy named Caleb. Caleb was a 7^th grader who could be defined as “a class clown.” He had remarks for everyone and always had to get in the final word. He struggled academically and sat quietly in the classroom during discussions or lectures. He rarely completed his homework, would not ask for help, and routinely failed quizzes and tests. Teachers, including me, struggled with Caleb because he just didn’t care. There was a lot of concern for Caleb looking into his future and wondering how he would get through 7^th and 8^th grade and what high school was going to look like for him.

In November of Caleb’s 7^th grade year, as a school, we decided to implement personalized learning in a blended learning environment. This meant that Caleb was in a classroom of 6^th, 7^th and 8^th graders. Classes were split amongst two teachers. One teacher taught Humanities (me) while the other teacher taught STEM. It took a lot to figure out how to best meet the needs of the students; but, it was definitely what was needed.

The first thing I needed to do was to pretest the students and find out where each one of them was academically. I made binders for each grade and subject that included the standards needing to be mastered. If a student showed mastery in a standard, I marked it in the binder. While that did not mean the student did not have to practice that standard, I knew it was one I didn’t have to “teach.” I then grouped the students according to subject and standards not yet mastered. This is how I developed my weekly lesson plans along with each student’s weekly work plan. Students were provided tasks to either practice skills taught but not yet mastered or review standards previously mastered.

Students worked through three rotations. One station was with me. This is where I taught the standards the students needed to learn. This was done in their small group. After students met with me, they were given an assignment or project to practice the standard. Students could work independently or in their small group. They knew they could ask each other for help because if I wasn’t working with their group, I was working with another group. The third station was independent work time. This is where students followed their personalized work plan and self-selected which standards they wanted to work on. Students had a list of “Must Do’s” and “May Do’s”. Students had to complete 15 minutes of work on each “Must Do” before they could work on a “May Do.”

There were many benefits to implementing a personalized learning environment. First, students like Caleb were not left behind. I knew through data collection; exactly what Caleb knew and exactly what he needed to work on. Because I was working with him at his level, there were minimal frustrations and Caleb started to become more excited to learn. Second, students got to self-select what they wanted to work on. Caleb did not like being “told” what to do. He liked having power in the classroom. By self-selecting what he wanted to work on, this gave him that power. He was focused on the work in front of him and took pride in showing me all that he accomplished in a class period. He started to think the work was “easy” and therefore also saw growth in the speed at which he was producing work.

And finally, there were no more traditional “quizzes” and “tests.” Most of seeing mastery through the standards was through observation, small group time, and projects. Because there were multiple grade levels in the classroom and students working on multiple standards, students were given choice in their final project as well. One thing I learned about Caleb that I didn’t before was how creative he was. Whenever he had the choice in a final project, he also selected one that he could “create.” I had never seen him work so intently on a “test” before. Caleb struggled with writing, so to be able to create something and talk about it not only boosted his self-esteem, but it also boosted his knowledge and understanding of the standards he had been working on.

During parent teacher conferences that spring, Caleb shared with his parents and me how much he enjoyed the personalized learning environment. He liked that he got to choose what he worked on without the teacher telling him. He also liked that the teacher spoke to him independently instead of in front of the whole class. He wasn’t embarrassed anymore to get an answer wrong because he wasn’t being publicly humiliated. And the greatest part for him was being able to choose his final project. He could clearly see how much he was learning and was excited to share his knowledge with others. While Caleb always continued to be “the funny guy” in class, he was no longer bursting out and disrupting others. He was focusing his attention on the task at hand and absorbing as much as he possibly could during class. Because of my experiences with personalized learning as a teacher, I fully implemented it when I became a principal. Why personalized learning, you ask? Because it works!

Angela Gunderson

This past week the Meitler team had the privilege of gathering at the Carmelite Retreat Center in Darien, Illinois to host the pioneer cohort of the National Catholic School Mentorship Program at a three-day Leadership Institute.  The goal of this two-year program is to equip school leaders the knowledge, skills and tools needed to apply the findings from the 2016 study “The Catholic School Choice: Understanding the Perspectives of Parents and Opportunities for More Engagement” in their local schools.

The Leadership Institute was comprised of eleven transformational principals from around the United States selected by their dioceses, representatives from Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities (FADICA) and the National Catholic Education Association (NCEA), who sponsored the program, as well as a dynamic list of workshop presenters.  The principals formed study groups with the goal to work together on creating an enrollment management programs for their schools.  The study groups meet monthly with the Meitler team joining in those sessions for ongoing support and coaching. 

The days at the Leadership Institute were action packed, engaging, fun and provided the principals with opportunities to form collaborative relationships with one another.  We parted ways grateful for the assurance that our work doesn’t end here; we are on a journey together.  As a champion of Catholic education, I left the Institute feeling energized and hopeful that the work of our schools may currently be “the best kept secret” but soon will become “the best known secret”!