Becoming a PRIME Leader

The premise of the PRIME Framework is that leaders can close the gap between knowing the theory and the commitment to actions we must take as a result of that knowledge.  Please take a moment to reflect upon the Principles and Indicators in the Framework. 

You will have an opportunity at our Fall Academy to discuss your plans for the upcoming year.  What is one Stage 2 or 3 goal you can set that would help others to become engaged and committed STEM educators?  How would this goal support your plan?

Jenny Jorgensen - Principle 2 & 3

What experiences have you had in engaging teacher teams in the collaborative development and implementation of instructional strategies needed to support every learner?  Have you been able to facilitate teacher growth in their content knowledge or implementation of best practices?  What works, and what’s challenging?  As you read this section, was there a particular Stage 2 or 3 Indicator strategy that resonated with you … why did that have meaning for you?
I have participated and facilitated a book group discussion as we were learning about Differentiation Strategies for the math classroom.  During the discussions we shared our thoughts about what we'd read and set goals to try a strategy in our classrooms and be ready to share our experiences at our next meeting.  We set the stage for our work by agreeing that we would all try something and look to each other for help and feedback about the work. 
This work can be linked in the Framework to Teaching and Learning Indicator 1 and 2. As teachers, we were learning about differentiation for the purpose of increasing our ability to differentiate our math instruction.  Teachers worked collaboratively to learn about differentiation through a book study and then worked together to implement some of the strategies we'd tried.
As the Math Lead Teacher in the building, I provided support to teachers and helped develop resources, based on our reading, for teachers to use in their math classes. 
It was challenging for teachers to take the first step and try a strategy from what we'd been reading.  This work seems to target, Teaching and Learning Indicator 2, Stage 2: "Engage teachers in collaborative dialogue about research-informed instructional practices and planning for effective student learning of mathematics."  The work that we've done as a staff during the book groups was the beginning. We are still trying new strategies with the goal of differentiating our instruction in order to meet the needs of our students in heterogeneous math classes.

     At my school we are in the process of trying to bridge the present edition (2007) of Everyday Math with the Common Core Standards. We met as a whole school for an afternoon with a woman from the company as she led us through the web site that tells what to still use and what lessons to download that will be more compatible. Now we are working together as grade level teams to focus on our own curriculum. This year I am not the PLT (Professional Learning Team) leader since I have been for the last few years and will be next year when we focus on NGSS. However, I bring my leadership skills in to the meetings to help keep a positive spin on the changes, focusing on what we already do well. I agree with Nancy's quote from page 26. We are engaged in joint work focused on explicit common learning goals. That's why Indicator 3 resonated with me. I feel lucky to be a part of a team of 7 fifth grade teachers, all pooling their amazing expertise. I'd like to hear more from teachers who may be the only one on their grade level having to do this.

Action Indicators for Teaching and Learning Leadership

I stopped short on page 23 at the following: "Developing understanding requires more than connecting new and prior knowledge; it requires a structuring of knowledge so that new knowledge can be 'related to and incorporated into existing networks of knowledge rather than connected on and element-by-element basis.'" As a Stage 3 leader in my district charged with informing the development of a coherent K-12 STE curriculum, a classroom teacher and an avid disciple of the Frameworks and NGSS, this statement both affirms the "natural" way that children learn and the design of NGSS. My question is how best to ensure that a particular continuum of learning about one of these elements is realized as a child's "network of knowledge" expands?

NGSS doesn't set forth performance expectations for skills such as measurement, for example, but rather relies on us as practitioners to integrate teaching practical skills where needed in order to meet particular expectations. In discussions with our high school staff over the years, the recurrent frustration is that remediation is always needed in measurement skills. So where and when does that need to happen?

to the best of my knowledge, Measurement as a discrete category of practical skills appears in Common Core Math in grades 1-4 and disappears thereafter. Application of measurement in math is required to advance through CC Math grades 5-12. Measurement targets aren't explicitly addressed in NGSS, but need to be realized through the Practices. In short, to resolve the frustration at the high school level, the elements of the "network" of knowledge need to be well-understood by stakeholders, especially teaching staff.

Hmmm. Our K-4 staff are well-equipped with materials and lessons through the curriculum our district has provided. In grade 6, students change buildings, dialog vertically between staff becomes almost non-existent, and the transition to high school is another barrier as Science becomes Geology, Biology, Chemistry and Physics. As Maureen Fortier and others wrote in our blog about Equity, small victories are to be celebrated. That's certainly going to be the case here.  Are there Fellows or Mentors who are in a district that you feel has an effective way to delve into the discrete needs at a particular level and can analyze the "network of knowledge" to verify a continuum of a particular element?

-Ann Putney

Mired in Stage 1

I think I have mastered being a Stage 1 Leader.  I can model instructional strategies for improved student learning (pg.25), I know my research-informed best practices (pg. 29), I can write up a mean lesson plan, I know how to effectively use technology (pg. 27), I can help others improve needed areas of their teaching (pg. 27). But when it comes to Stage 2: engaging others to collaborate effectively in their pedagogy, consistently dialogue about researched informed instructional practices, of any of the other areas, I fall flat on my face.  I get a complete lack of engagement from my colleagues and lots of uh-huh's. I am at a loss of how to help them see the importance. I am certain that it is my tact that I am taking that is the primary issue, it must be, because certainly they must see the need for improved practices, the benefit of collaborative reflection, subject-based professional development.

I was the science dept. head for five years, the first two or three years I was at a loss for what I was supposed to be doing, I was told just be a go-between for your dept. and administration. Then I started to realize (thank you Anita) that we should be working together as a dept. on how to implement effective science practices and staying on top of what's happening in our subject area. But as I mentioned, most weren't interested, most wanted to talk about struggles with specific students and  with administration. None really wanted to "add more" onto what was already expected of them.

I've had minor successes of providing opportunities for teachers to build their knowledge and skills,  but collaborative site based professional development would be fantastic. Or knowing even, that every S(cience)TEM teacher in our district were properly using tools such as the Benchmarks or Science Matters or had read "Ready, Set, Science!", or was an NSTA and MSTA member.  What a great feeling to know that every student had a teacher that was up on all the foundational resources of STEM education?

Karen Shibles

With limited time for the collaborative development of instructional strategies, I have found success when the strategies are of the type that can be implemented immediately. When busy teachers walk away with something they can try in their classroom the very next day, there is growth. We have had success with literacy strategies as well as strategies to support our ELs. The challenge is in the sustainability of the strategies. Some will successfully implement a new strategy and make it part of what they do while others will do so for awhile but then lose track of that over time, reverting back to what is comfortable or what is routine. That's the tough part.

We are frustrated with the recent test results and many of my colleagues want to take action, immediately. They are asking 'what can we do to improve test scores?' I worry that in a few weeks, after the buzz about the scores fades, the desire to really do some tough, reflective work will fade as well. I want to keep it a priority! Any suggestions?

Many of the stage 2 and 3 Indicator strategies resonated with me. As I read them, I thought about how ideal they sounded. Can I be a Stage 2 or 3 leader and a full-time classroom teacher at the same time? Where are these resources, the time, the support, the professional development? I feel stuck in the "Know and Model" stage. 

Principles 2 and 3: Teaching & Learning Leadership, Curriculum Leadership

Principle 2 is based upon the premise that a highly effective education leader is skilled at supporting the growth of every teacher (p.22).  What experiences have you had in engaging teacher teams in the collaborative development and implementation of instructional strategies needed to support every learner?  Have you been able to facilitate teacher growth in their content knowledge or implementation of best practices?  What works, and what’s challenging?  As you read this section, was there a particular Stage 2 or 3 Indicator strategy that resonated with you … why did that have meaning for you?

Stacy LaBree

Johanna Lake and I co-teach 9th grade algebra for 2 blocks (80 minute classes).  Special education students participate in these classes alongside their peers.  We are constantly working together to examine the effectiveness of our instructional approach.  I believe the key component to the success of our co-teaching is that we provide each student access to relevant and meaningful experiences every day (Indicator #2).  Every student in our class has access to lessons that vary learning styles, that have engaging and meaningful activities that model best practices, that are rigorous and challenging, as well as meet grade level curriculum standards.  We have spent countless hours over the past year researching, developing, revising, and collaborating to create meaningful and rich learning opportunities for all our students.  However, we still have 6 students that are on our team in a resource room algebra class.  Although I feel that I teach that class with rigor and high expectations, model much of the same instructional approaches and practices, Johanna and I are exploring the interventions and supports we need to employ so that those 6 students can be afforded the same learning opportunities as their peers.  We are beginning to “focus our energy on making the vision of equity a reality and begin to eliminate the access barrier.” (p.16)  We feel that we need to access professional development in order to learn the skills necessary to maximize these students’ learning. Collaborating with other professionals in learning community would be extremely beneficial in order to initiate “discourse regarding methods for obtaining greater access, opportunity, and successful interventions for students across all populations.” (p. 17) We feel we need to look at differentiation practices more closely and created a targeted and intervention plan that we can tailor to the unique needs of each individual student.

The district that I work for has many components of all of the equity indicators in place but much of it seems disjointed.  I am not sure that all of our pieces are working in support of each other.  We have  district wide curriculum committees in both math and science(although labeled as a STEM team).  The math committee has focused on the CCSS and implementing consistent changes to our current programs to meet the expectations and the STEM committee has focused on developing an understanding of NGSS with particular emphasis on the practices and the cross cutting concepts.  I would say that both of these committee fall in the criteria of Equity Indicators 2 and 3.  In both areas we are having discussions about meaningful and relevant instruction and learning.  The math group is further ahead with bringing the ideas back to the building level and having all teachers working toward this goal.  The STEM group is still in the process of developing understanding of what all of this means and has not yet begun to share the knowledge with others.   The sharing will come in time.  Oddly enough, I feel that my district struggles with Equity Indicator 1 more than 2 or 3.  We have structures in place for analyzing testing data but I don't think we do a very good job of collecting and analyzing formative and or diagnostic assessments in math.  The data that we look at is generally annual data and by the time that we look at it, to old to us to determine individual student needs.  It would be helpful to us if we took time to establish targeted benchmarks and measured the student work in relation to those benchmarks.  I think interventions that we could provide based on specific benchmarks would be more beneficial to the individual students. 

Mickie Flores

Numbers are an interesting commodity. Mine is not the land of 1000 students and 10 science teachers. The middle school science department is comprised solely of me. The entire 7th grade is fifteen students. The entire 6th grade has 20 students. I think my leadership has been in the creation of a very hands-on, accessible-to-all-students curriculum. It has become accepted practice that special ed students who have not functioned in a general ed classroom in years begin the transition to general ed in my science classroom. I have provided access for all student populations and I now see those students moving into additional general ed classes. And I am able to collaborate with my colleagues from other disciplines and describe what instructional strategies have worked best.  I agree with the phrase “Leadership is a shared endeavor.”

I’m curious about the sentence “A Stage 1 leader also understands that tracking as a policy and practice creates inequalities.” Although I identify with the civil rights basis for NCLB and I understand that tracking has been a tool in the past which limited students’ access to more meaningful learning, I also believe meeting the diverse needs of all student populations means providing Algebra for select 7th and 8th graders. Having a gifted and talented (or other label) classroom in its own way “provides specific attention to those students farthest from expected standards of rigor and achievement. I think distance from expected standards extends in two directions. That’s Equity Standard 2!

J. Jorgensen

At our school, an almost 500 student, middle school, we are working on differentiation.  We have spent time as a faculty learning about differentiation through collaborative, mixed grade level and mixed subject book groups.  We each had an opportunity to select a book about differentiation and then met with other people who selected the same book.  We determined how we would read the book and the conversations we would have each time we met.  We are now at a stage where we are working on implementing what we learned during our book groups. 
This work has a connection to Indicator 2 where teachers are working to provide students with access to relevant and meaningful math experiences.  We are beginning to use pre-assessments in in order to determine students' understanding about the upcoming math and then develop a plan of instruction for children based the knowledge that they bring to the current unit.  This work is helping us recognize that students learn at different paces and we have to be sure to continually check in with students and their understanding of mathematics in order to provide them with the appropriate instruction.

Equity Indicator 3: As a Stage 1 leader at my high school of 1,000 students, I am more than aware of the importance of "creating a shared vision and culture in which teachers seek to continuously improve instruction and grow professionally together." (page 19) My struggle is moving from this awareness phase into a meaningful action phase with all ten members of my science department. Our school-wide professional development schedule is divided up among many other initiatives leaving only one hour-long monthly meeting for my department. Creating a collaborative learning community can be messy! It takes time to build trust. The lack of continuity with the "start and stop" schedule we live by makes it tough to "share and discuss issues of practice." (page 19). This can be especially challenging when some are of the mindset "this is how I've always done it." For example, we have 5 different Biology teachers and I need the group to really examine their instructional strategies and practices. Students are having very different experiences depending on who they get for a teacher. The quote from Reeves, at the bottom of page 19, really spoke to me: "balance the desire for professional autonomy with the fundamental principles and values that drive collaboration, mutual assessment, and accountability." How do we find that balance when we meet for approximately 10 hours in a school year? How are others moving out of Stage 1? Advice?

Maker Space

Equity Indicator 2:

Every teacher provides each student access to relevant and meaningful STEM experiences.

stage 2: Engage teachers to create and implement strategies that improve student access to STEM curriculum and ensure teachers act on those strategies.

I have been a part of an ongoing STEM conversation with colleagues across my district.  Some meetings there are 6 people, other meetings it seems like 25 people at the table.  There are so many perspectives and ideas about STEM that at times it feels like we are just spinning our wheels.  The good thing is that we have someone running the meetings who listens to people and has the ability to take action.  There has been recent talk of developing a “Maker Space” for middle and high school students interested in spending time outside the school day to explore and tinker and build stuff.  The other good thing about the group is that there are many dedicated educators willing to try new things.  The big obstacle for us is budget.  I think that if we put our heads together and get creative we can accomplish a lot.  I hope to use my experience as a technology education teacher and share what I know about engineering design challenges and my network of resources to help implement a Maker Space for our district.  If we start small and have some success this could grow into something much bigger and offer all students opportunities for STEM experiences.  

-Gus Goodwin

Principle 1 - Equity Leadership

It is great that I am asked to blog about something that I am struggling with in my own district/career. In this reading I was most struck by indicator #3.

'Every teacher works interdependently in a collaborative learning community to erase inequities in student learning.'

In my district I am often frustrated by the lack of, what I perceive as drive by my colleagues, but actually could be many other factors, toward being a better educator. I don't see my colleagues striving to learn best practices in Science or STEM education. I rarely even hear them reference STEM, the Benchmarks, NSTA, etc. District leaders don't see the value of S.T.or E. in the elementary grades,(at least not as much as I would like). Dept. meetings are getting fewer by the year and when they take place they are monopolized by whatever new initiative has come "down the pike". The positive changes feel glacial at best.
Not to say there are some incremental positive changes:  I'm thrilled when they ask about the NGSS.  I had the opportunity to share Paige's formative assessments probes and my department recently asked that we order the rest of them. I have convinced the curriculum coordinators to allow me to be a STEM integrator on a trial basis in grades k-6. Some positive changes...
But to live true to indicator #3 feels as if it would take decades. I want to see 100% of the staff constantly engaged in best practices and working to educate every student! In the reading it states that this type of leadership work is career long and always in progress. And I would like to add that there will always be a hurdle (or a dozen!) I want every student to have engaging and challenging STEM education.....it is frustrating to think that I could work toward this my whole life and never reach every staff member.

Addressing All Student Populations

Each year I sit down with several of the math teachers in my department and we review our Maine High School Assessment results.  We conduct a detailed analysis, looking at which students exceeded, met, partially met, or did not meet the standards.  We look at which courses the students have completed; some have taken pre calculus while others have only taken Algebra 1.  We also look at each question to see where students "went wrong" and where we can strengthen our curriculum to help students be more successful in the future.  After looking at the data, we concluded that students who had only taken Algebra 1 by their junior year would not be able to meet the standards and we decided to focus on actions that would help those students who were in the partially met category move to the met category.

In reading the Equity Indicators, I believe that we should have done more investigation on those who were in the lowest category as well.  Equity Indicator 1 states "every teacher addresses gaps in mathematics achievement expectations for all student populations".  If we had used the Collaborate and Implement criteria of Stage 2 we could have made changes to the instructional strategies used for this student population.  As we sit down again to review the MHSA results this year we will be looking at all student populations