Sex Education Across the World

This week’s article summary is School Sex Education is Often Negative, Heterosexist, and Out of Touch.

The article resonated for me less for the subject of sex education and more as an illustration of the importance of student relevancy in the classroom. 

As the article attests, most students (around the world) feel schools do a poor job teaching SRE (Sex and Relationship Education) because the content and delivery of the course do not reflect what students actually see and experience outside of the classroom. 

This can include the following: 

• Being sexually active when most SRE courses espouse abstinence-only strategies
• Knowing and/or being  gay, bisexual, transgender when SRE courses focus exclusively on heterosexuality
• Wanting opportunities to talk confidentially about their lives when SRE courses are most often taught by school teachers rather than outside specialists

It’s not surprising that sex education is a controversial subject, not only in the United States but around the world, as it typically is filled with religious, social, parenting, and/or political beliefs and implications. 

Yet the result is middle and high school kids not getting the information, advice, and counseling they so want and need. 

And when kids don’t see relevance and connection to their lives in their classrooms, everyone loses. 

The implication for Trinity, an elementary school, is to keep striving for both the ‘what' and ‘how' we teach to be relevant to our students and to their lives at the moment. Last year as we developed the six pillars of what drives our program, we included under Cherish Childhood "design experiences around what is important in the life of a child.” 

Students would greatly benefit if SRE programs tried to do this.

Joe

—————

In most countries across the world, school do not acknowledge that sex education is a special subject with unique challenges, and as a result are doing a huge disservice to young people and are missing a key opportunity to safeguard and improve their sexual health, conclude researchers.

They base their findings on 55 studies which explored the views and experiences of young people (age 12-18) who had been taught sex and relationship education (SRE) in school programs in the UK, Ireland, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Iran, Brazil and Sweden.

The researchers synthesized the feedback and found that despite the wide geographical reach of the studies, young people's views were remarkably consistent.

Two overarching themes emerged.

The first was that schools fail to recognize the distinctive and challenging nature of SRE, for the most part preferring to approach it in exactly the same way as other subjects.

Yet the feedback indicated there are distinct challenges when teaching SRE: in mixed sex classes young men feared humiliation if they weren't sexually experienced and said they were often disruptive to mask their anxieties; their female class mates felt harassed and judged by them.

Young people also criticized the overly 'scientific' approach to sex, which ignored pleasure and desire, and they felt that sex was often presented as a 'problem' to be managed. 

Stereotyping was also common, with women depicted as passive, men as predatory, and little or no discussion of gay, bisexual, or transgender sex.

The second principal theme was that schools seem to find it difficult to accept that some of their students are sexually active, leading to content that is out of touch with the reality of many young people's lives and a consequent failure to discuss issues that are relevant to them.

This was evident in what young people perceived as an emphasis on abstinence, moralizing, and a failure to acknowledge the full range of sexual activities they engaged in. 

But it also manifests in a failure to deliver helpful and practical information, such as the availability of community health services, what to do if they got pregnant, the pros and cons of different methods of contraception, or the emotions that might accompany sexual relationships.

The evidence suggests that young people themselves want SRE to be taught in schools, using an approach that is 'sex positive' -- one that aims for young people to enjoy their sexuality in a way that is safe, consensual, and healthy.

Empowering Students in the Classroom

This week’s article summary is Lessons Learned Going Back to School.

The focus is on a math teacher who after attending graduate school full time decided to implement more progressive, child-centered teaching strategies  in her classroom.

Enthusiastic to change from more traditional lecture style, she found the implementation to student-voice/choice and inquiry-based learning much more challenging in reality compared to the ideal of her graduate school studies.

However, she persisted (as she expects from her students), continually assessing and adjusting as needed, and ultimately found success in smaller rather than bigger ideas and initiatives. 

The article resonated for me because her experiences are what we—as teachers--all deal with: not only balancing traditional and progressive teaching methods but having periodic doubts and questions about our effectiveness in the classroom, I.e., are my students really learning.

Joe

--------

After being in graduate school full-time and then returning to the classroom as a teacher, I was ready to move away from the comfortable (and manageable) lecture-and-note-taking pedagogy I used before.

I was psyched to bring high-level tasks, cognitive demand, meaningful math discussions, and effective group work to my classroom.

But making these changes was not a simple matter.

As a teacher, talking less and asking students to take more responsibility for their learning involved layers of complexity that I had not anticipated.

For example, many students and parents believed that a good mathematics teacher could and would clearly explain the concepts and procedures before students tackled a problem and that struggling with the material was a bad sign.  

Here are some of the challenges I faced especially in the opening weeks of school:

• Building on student thinking was difficult without classroom norms that supported productive student work
• Encouraging students to use mathematical reasoning and persist with solving problems didn’t make me feel successful and competent
• Figuring out what I should do next and managing classroom time often kept me from using real-time assessments to respond to students’ understanding.

The whole approach often felt as uncomfortable as ill-fitting shoes. Secretly, I longed to just ‘show and tell’ for a while. I began to grow weary and unsure of myself.

But I persisted and by the end of the year, my students were getting into a groove.

The three key lessons I learned were:

Think big – and small; My big-picture goal for the year – implementing student-centered instruction that helped develop students’ persistence in solving problems – was hard to measure day by day, and as a result, I often felt overwhelmed and discouraged. To maintain my sanity, I set smaller, weekly goals that were way-stations to the ultimate outcome. Some examples:

• Showing student work on a document camera at least twice weekly
• Preparing and asking one high-level question each day
• Anticipating students’ strategies for one core lesson
• Using a written record for real-time assessments
• Using student work in the summary phase of lesson             

Limit initiatives to those that support the big goal: As we try to change and grow our practice, whether self-driven or motivated by policy or district-level change, we will encounter more ideas than we can possibly implement in a year or even our whole career. It pays to focus on a smaller set of objectives, and for a while, selectively choose initiatives that fit those goals. For example, I went to a workshop that presented 50 great classroom apps and chose two that specifically encouraged mathematical communication and offered assessment strategies that support multiple competencies.

Collaboration is key: My biggest support came from working alongside other mathematics teachers. I co-taught, observed colleagues, discussed goals (big and small), monitored students’ progress, and (with some trepidation) invited other teachers to observe my teaching and give feedback. 

The Benefits of Being Fidgety

This week’s article summary is Why Fidgeting is Good Medicine.

Last week I wrote about two teachers who made a tremendous impact on me as a student and as a person and who inspired me to become a teacher. 

While I don’t remember for sure, my guess is they allowed me to be 'my fidgety self' in class. 

I’m not so attention deficit or hyperactive that I need medication, but I know from ample experience as a kid and as an adult that I focus, concentrate, and learn best when my body can be physically active. When confined to sitting, I have to keep my legs moving up and down like a piston.

When I was a student in middle school, the most difficult 40 minutes of the week was Quaker meeting when we were expected to sit still, be quiet, and think 'deep thoughts.' 

As an adult, I don’t relish all-day educational conferences and workshops as all too often I am expected to sit listening for extended periods of time. Usually, I try to find a seat near the back of the room, so I can get up every twenty minutes or so and stand for a bit. 

When taking notes or even just listening to a speaker, I need to doodle (usually random geometric shapes) in order to concentrate. People around me might think I’m daydreaming and not listening when in fact the random doodling is a necessity of concentration. 

At night, I rarely get under bed covers and sheets because when asleep my legs move constantly, much to the aggravation of my wife, who also has to remind me at restaurants to stop tapping my fingers on the table or rocking my chair back and forth.

Over time I’ve learned to cope and to be inconspicuous with this need to be in perpetual motion, yet when I was a kid I’m sure my antics were often interpreted as being disrespectful.

The article below is the scientific proof why many of us are so fidgety and, specifically, how moving one’s feet when sitting has cognitive as well as physical benefits.

Joe

---------

Here’s some advice for teachers who tell fidgeting students to just sit still: let them tap their toes and jiggle their legs.

Why? Because fidgeting is good for their health.

Sitting is one of the scourges of modern life. The health consequences of muscular immobility are well documented. Studies show that uninterrupted sitting causes an abrupt and significant decline in blood flow to the legs. This causes vessel walls to pump out proteins that, over time, contribute to hardening and narrowing of the arteries. Blood pressure rises, increasing the risk of atherosclerosis.

The simplest solution is to get up and move around, increasing blood flow in the legs, but when standing up is not an option, fidgeting is a good substitute.

In a recent study, college students sat for three hours with one leg immobile and the other regularly fidgeting. They measured a striking difference in blood flow between the two legs: a precipitous decline in the immobile leg and an increase in the fidgeting leg, compared to the baseline. At the end of the three hours, when the researchers tested the ability of the subjects’ legs to respond to changes in blood pressure, the immobile legs no longer worked as well as they had during baseline testing, meaning that they were already not as healthy as they had been. The arteries in the fidgeting legs responded as well or better than before.

The muscular contractions associated with fidgeting are quite small, but they are sufficient to combat some of the unhealthy consequences of sitting. 

Which Teacher Inspired You?

This week’s article summary is What Teachers Can Do to Boost Student Engagement.

As I read about the teacher qualities that support student the development of agency (sense of self) and a growth mindset in students, I kept thinking about the type of teacher most of us remember as the most influential in shaping us as adults.

We probably recall a ‘tough and strict’ teacher—an intimidating,  no nonsense task-master who took no slack, suffered no fools, ran his/her classroom in regimental fashion, and was kind of scary and frightening. This teacher introduced us to the ‘real world’ and taught important life-lessons about hard work, effort, and responsibility. 

It’s interesting to me how in hindsight we think that the teacher’s strictness shaped us. Often I hear from both parents and teachers that this is the type of teacher that children need and, if we had more teachers like this, education and today’s youth would be better served.

Educational pundit Alfie Kohn refers to this as the “Listerine Effect” of education: the belief that growth and progress require suffering and even misery (or in the case of Listerine, its bad taste lets us know that it’s killing germs).

The reality, as the article attests, is that a different type of teacher shapes and influences our sense of self and belonging.

My inspirational teachers were Mr. Podmore (in a self-contained 6th grade classroom) and Mr. Coe, my 7th grade American history teacher. 

They helped me grow as a student and as a person, not by making me fear them but by encouraging me to look inward and to see the value of my thoughts, feelings, opinions, and individuality.

Their classrooms were alive with student ideas and opinions. We had lots of class discussions and, especially in 7th grade history, tests were principally essay questions that began with the words “Why do you think…” 

Mr. Podmore and Mr. Coe made me think and form opinions, using content as the springboard, not the goal. They pushed me to justify my ideas with supporting evidence.

At Trinity, we talk about the importance of student empowerment and deeper learning, and these teachers fostered both in me. 

They helped me begin to see that the world was complex with much grayness and ambiguity, that truth has many dimensions, and that my opinion was one of many perspectives.  

They valued my classmates and me as individuals, not as one large group. 

My sense of self began to take shape in those years, and, as a result, school became more interesting, relevant, and even fun to me. 

6th and 7th grade for me were seminal school years,  6th grade being my culminating year in a public elementary school and 7th grade being my first year in a private Quaker school.

Moving from a public to private school was daunting--being a new kid, trying out for football, having to wear a tie and jacket at school, having a different teacher for every class, getting much more homework, having to take notes and study for tests. 

Yet Mr. Podmore had helped prepare me for this transition. In my new school, I felt that I mattered, that I had to speak up and advocate for myself, that I had something to say, and that I could think, not just memorize and repeat. 

And every day Mr. Coe’s history class buoyed these emerging personal revelations. 

I can trace becoming a teacher to Mr. Podmore and Mr. Coe. Beyond admiring them, I wanted to teach just like them.

It may be more common for us to reflect back on teachers who were strict (and I had some of them too), yet our true models and influencers are those teachers who live to the 7 standards below.

I hope you had a teacher like Mr. Podmore and Mr. Coe and that we as educators inspire our students the way they did for me!

Joe  

-----------

Below are the 7 Cs of Teaching to boost student agency and to foster a growth mindset

Care: Be attentive and sensitive, but don’t coddle

Confer: Encourage and respect students’ perspectives, but don’t waste class time with idle chatter

Captivate: Make lessons stimulating and relevant while knowing that some students may hide their interest

Clarify (clear up confusion, lucid explanations, instructive feedback): Take regular steps to detect and respond to confusion, but don’t just tell students the answers

Consolidate: Regularly summarize lessons to help consolidate leaning

Challenge (require rigor, require persistence): Anticipate some resistance but persist

Classroom Management: Achieve respectful, orderly, and on-task student behavior by using clarity, capitation, and challenge instead of coercion

How Early Does Your Personality Take Shape?

This week’s article summary is Clues to Your Personality Appear Before You Talk, and its focus is on research conducted on infants to assess to what extent early traits and behaviors remain in adulthood.

My guess is most of us feel there is a connection between the traits we demonstrated as infants and our personality as adults.

In the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate, environment and experiences exert some influence in subsequent personality, yet based on the research studies in the article, our genes play a much more significant role.

One of my favorite books is Daniel Willingham’s A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom. 

In one chapter on the 'nature v. nurture’ question Willingham discusses studies of identical twins separated at birth and growing up in different households and different environments. Often the twins, regardless of the household or environment, end up by having similar interests, outlook on life, etc. (including spouses who look alike). Willingham concludes that genetics influence how you see the world, how you interact with it, and what interests you pursue. So, while it’s incorrect to say that ‘genes are our destiny’, they do preprogram us to seek and favor certain experiences.

At my previous school—a preschool through eighth grade—the graduation ceremony included every 8th grader giving a short speech about how the school shaped him/her as a student and as a person. Not surprisingly some speeches were very short and straightforward while others were much more heartfelt and emotional. Invariably after the ceremony, 3s and PreK teachers would talk to me about how similar each graduate was to when they entered school at 3 or 4. There were some exceptions ("I would have never thought Jimmy could talk in front of hundreds of people!"), yet it was amazing how similar their personalities were at 3 and then 14. 

The importance of genetics does not mean we should take a fatalistic approach to life. Rather we as teachers work with students' unique (though somewhat hardwired) personalities in helping them grow and develop as students and as people.

Joe

———

Your personality has been sculpted by many hands: Your genes, your friends, the schools you attended, plus many other factors all play a part in making you the person you are today.

But when exactly did your own distinct character first begin to take shape?

If you’re a shy person now, for instance, does that mean you were a shy child?

In all likelihood, yes. 

In fact, research suggests there are significant links between our behavioral tendencies when we’re just a few months old and our later personality. That isn’t to say that our personality was set in stone that early, but that the roots of who we are can be traced all the way back to our earliest days.

Psychologists who study babies usually refer to “temperament” rather than personality and one of the first ever investigations in this was the New York Longitudinal Study in the 1950s, which observed children from their birth up to age 30, as well as interviewing their parents.

Researchers concluded that there were nine different facets of infant temperament, including activity level, mood, and, distractibility. They noted that scores on different facets tended to cluster in three categories: “easy children”, “difficult children” and “slow to warm up” children.

The New York study found evidence that children categorized as easy or difficult at age three also tended to be categorized the same way in early adulthood.

Today the original nine aspects of temperament have been distilled into three broad dimensions: 

• Effortful Control which describes things like the infant’s self-control and ability to focus (resisting, for example, the lure of a tempting toy)
• Negative Affectivity, which refers to levels of negative emotion like fear and frustration
• Extraversion, which is to do with activity levels, excitement and being sociable

In a recent study parents rated their infants’ temperament on these dimensions when they were just a few months old (seven months, on average) and then rated their children’s personalities again an average of eight years later.

Infants who scored higher on the extraversion domain (they did things like smiled more) tended to score lower, at age eight, on the adult personality trait of neuroticism (that is, they were more emotionally stable); and those infants who scored higher on this study’s equivalent of effortful control went on to score higher on aspects of the adult trait of conscientiousness when they were children. 

If your baby seems to have a decent attention span – good news, this probably means they’ll keep their room tidy when they’re older.

Links even stretch across four decades. In another study researchers took measures of infancy temperament a little later, between the ages of 12 and 30 months, and found an association with personality traits in the same individuals when they were tested again 40 years later.

The two traits in question were toddler disinhibition (similar to the more widely used extraversion rating) and adult extraversion. That is, the more active and assertive the participants had been as toddlers, the more likely they were to score highly on extraversion as adults and on self-efficacy (our belief in our own abilities).

It’s worth remembering when reading about these findings that our personalities, although they show consistency through life, are also constantly evolving and it would be impossible to pinpoint any one moment when a person’s personality in their youth had taken on its adult form. However, as an infant grows into a small child, their personality is gradually crystallizing. Wait until a child is aged three, for example, and now their behavior will even more strongly foretell the adult personality.

Anyone who has young children of their own, or spends time with them, knows that it’s tempting to look for signs of emerging personality traits in a baby’s giggle or frown. The latest psychology research suggests such speculation might not be entirely in vain.

Researchers are also realizing that the roots of adult psychological problems may lie in behavioral tendencies that first appear in early childhood. By learning to recognize these signs, it might be possible to intervene carefully at an early age and to help steer children on the path to a healthier future.

Best Spot for 6th Graders

This week’s article summary is Sixth Grade is Tough. It Helps to Be Top Dog.

This article went viral when it was published earlier this week, especially among K-8 schools which are always on the look out for evidence that their school model is preferable for young children and adolescents.

I liked the findings of this study that determined in what school model do 6th graders fare best in, but I was a  bit surprised that the study didn’t not include Trinity's pre-6th model. 

The study’s conclusion is that it’s optimal for 6th graders to be as close to the 'top dogs' of a school as possible, with the 6-12 model being the least effective option for 6th graders.

If you’ve taught middle schoolers in either 6th, 7th, or 8th grade, you know firsthand that social matters and peer pressure dominate those years for young adolescents. For kids are searching for their 'sense of self and belonging,’ it’s natural that peer approval and social standing become paramount concerns. Middle schoolers still hope for good grades, yet fitting in and belonging preoccupy their thoughts, wishes, and actions, which can manifest themselves in exclusion and in the extreme meanness and cruelty. 

From my experience teaching those grades, the height of the ‘lemming years’ where fitting in is of uber  importance is most prevalent in second half of 6th grade through the first half of 8th grade. (Most first semester 6th graders are still young and innocent and the majority of second semester 8th graders have ‘matured’ enough to see that individuality is something to be proud of.)

At Trinity we all see the tremendous social and personal growth of children during the 6th grade year. Being the ‘top dog’ gives 6th graders ample opportunities to be leaders and role models and to develop strong character habits like responsibility. 6th graders at Trinity carry themselves in a more self-assured, empowered, and self-confident manner than 6th graders in other school models. 

My hypothesis is that by having 6th grade be the ‘top dog’ of elementary school, we prolong the start of the lemming years a little longer and allow 6th graders that extra time to become surer of themselves, more empathetic and inclusive of others, and a little less prone to the negative aspects of peer pressure. 

The study below illustrates the benefits of K-8 over K-12 or 6-12 models.  

But we know at Trinity that the ideal is for 6th graders is to be the ‘top dog’ of elementary school!

Joe

----------

Oh, middle school. Mean girls who won't let you sit with them in the cafeteria. And, these days, cryptic taunts posted on social media, where parents and teachers can't always see them.

Middle schoolers report higher rates of bullying and fights than students in any other grade span, and their academic performance also tends to dip. But, things could be a little better — if we just got rid of middle schools, according to a big new study.

The study looked at the experiences of sixth- through eighth-graders in New York City at schools with different grade spans: K-8 vs. 6-8 and 6-12.

In the K-8 schools, those tweens and young teens were the "top dogs" — the oldest, the most comfortable and familiar with the school.

But, in traditional middle schools and 6-12 schools, sixth graders were the "bottom dogs.”

In the three-year study, the researchers drew from a group of 90,000 students in more than 500 schools. They found that when students were not the "bottom dogs," they reported feeling safer, less bullying, less fighting and a greater sense of belonging. And their grades and test scores were better, too.

There's been a lot of research already supporting what's called the "top dog/bottom dog" hypothesis. But this study is the first to find that position in the school affects experiences.

For example, the negative effects of being a bottom dog don't just come from being new to the school: The students who transferred into a K-8 school in sixth grade still had better experiences than students who started at a 6-8 school.

Today the prevailing practice nationwide is for middle schoolers to go to, well, middle schools. So, should this research motivate a wave of school reorganization?

EndFragment

Rethinking Differentiation

This week’s article summary is “Rethinking Differentiation.”

While the article focuses on the ideal of differentiation, what its detractors complain about, and the author’s compromise middle ground, more important to me is how this article parallels what Maryellen and Rhonda talked about in this week’s Wednesday’s divisional meetings: the three interdependent parts of the Instructional Core.

As we have discussed since preplanning, our principal goal as a school is student learning.

And the three interdependent parts of student learning are the thee parts of the Instructional Core—Teacher Knowledge and Skill (in both content and instructional practice), Student Engagement in Learning, and Academically Challenging Content.

Student learning is optimized only when all three are working in unison.

For me, differentiation has always had three main problems:

One, can be presented in an overly mechanical manner, i.e., the student-choice equation of content (what is learned), process (how it’s learned), and product (demonstration of understanding), when, in fact, as we all know as teachers, so much of what we do daily in the classroom requires nuance, judgment, readjustments, and art in being responsive to both whole class and individual student needs. 

Two, it makes academic content a variable. While we have easier access to content/knowledge in today's Information/Digital Age, we still need to know some common ‘stuff’ in our heads.

Three, it is often presented as a panacea for learning and an end in itself, rather than one of many instructional techniques we employ as vehicles for learning. (For many schools, technology can fall into this category as well.)

The article wants us to see that while differentiation can be intimidating and daunting to teachers, its components are really just good, age-old teaching techniques that focus on the two questions that all teachers keep in the forefront: What are my students supposed to learn? Are they mastering it?

The main point Rhonda and Maryellen made on Wednesday is those three parts of the Instructional Core: Teacher/Student/Content need our attention and focus to achieve the goal of student learning—and a technique like differentiation is one of many classroom strategies.

Joe

----------

What is the problem to which differentiation is the solution? 

Clearly it’s the fact that students walk into school with a wide range of differences in prior knowledge, vocabulary, reading proficiency, fluency in English, attitudes toward school, mindset about learning, tolerance of frustration and failure, learning-style preferences, special needs, and distracting things on their minds.

Whole-group instruction for a classroom of students with even a few of these differences is likely to leave many students bored or confused, so differentiation would seem to be a moral imperative.

Carol Ann Tomlinson, a leading expert in this area, makes the compelling case for effective attention to the learning needs of each student by orchestrating the learning environment, assessments, and instruction so all students learn what’s being taught.

Tomlinson suggests that teachers differentiate by content (what is taught), process (how it’s taught), and product (how students are asked to demonstrate their learning).

Differentiation is not without its critics, and they have raised a number of concerns:

• Can a teacher realistically tailor instruction to 20-30 different students?
• Can differentiation result in lowered expectations for students who are behind?
• Does it balkanize classrooms, sacrificing group cohesion and collective experiences?
• Is it even effective?

 Tomlinson stresses the importance of high standards, clear objectives, and frequent checks for understanding, and stoutly defends differentiation’s track record: students learn better when the work is at the right level of difficulty, personally relevant, and appropriately engaging.

Let’s step back and analyze the differentiation challenge from a broader perspective.

Consider the following classroom scenarios with two questions in mind: Which is the most and the least differentiated? And in which is the most learning taking place?

• A college professor gives a lecture to 700 students
• First graders sprawl on a rug engrossed in books they chose.
• Fifth graders use a computer program that adapts the level of difficulty to their responses.
• A Reading Recovery teacher tutors a struggling 1^st grader for 30 minutes a day.
• A middle-school physical education class does stretching and aerobic exercises in unison.

 On the first question, differentiation runs all the way from zero in the college lecture hall to 100 percent with one-on-one tutoring and a personalized computer program.

On the second question, well, it depends. Even one-on-one tutoring can be off-track on the curriculum and produce bored, confused, and alienated students.

But handled skillfully, each scenario has the potential for high levels of appropriate learning – even the college lecture (in the hands of a brilliant and charismatic professor) and the gym class (aerobic exercise has an especially beneficial impact on ADHD and overweight students).

The conclusion: trying to assess a teacher’s work asking, Is it differentiated? runs the risk of missing the forest for the trees.

Better to ask two broader questions: What are students supposed to be learning? Are all students mastering it?

Embedded in these questions are all the variables that research tells us will produce high levels of student learning: appropriate cognitive and non-cognitive goals; a positive classroom culture; instructional strategies that best convey the content; the right balance of whole-class, small-group, individual, and digital experiences; frequent checking for understanding; a clear standard of mastery (usually 80%); effective use of assessment to fine-tune teaching; and follow-up with students below mastery.

With these two questions in mind, teachers’ work falls logically into three phases – a different way of thinking about content, process, and product that is more in synch with the day-to-day work of schools:

Phase 1: Planning units and lessons: Good unit plans, ideally crafted by same-grade/ same subject teacher teams, focused on standards with clear statements of what students will know and be able to do; a pre-assessment; likely misconceptions; essential questions to guide students to the key understandings; periodic assessments; and a lesson-by-lesson game plan. All students learn more when content drives the choice of modalities.

Phase 2: Delivering instruction: Lessons are where the rubber meets the road and a major factor in student success is a set of in-the-moment moves that effective teachers have always used, among them effective classroom management; knowing students well; making the subject matter exciting; making it relevant; making it clear; taking advantage of visuals and props; involving students and getting them involved with each other; having a sense of humor; and nimbly using teachable moments.

Phase 3: Following up after instruction: No matter how well teachers plan and execute, some students won’t achieve mastery by the end of the lesson or unit. This is the moment of truth – if the class moves on, unsuccessful students will be that much more confused and discouraged and fall further and further behind, widening the achievement gap. Timely follow-up with these students is crucial – pullout, small-group after-school help, tutoring, and other strategies to help them catch up.

In all three phases, another priority is building students’ self-reliance and not doing too much for them. Among the most important life skills that students should take away from their K-12 years is the ability to self-assess, know their strengths and weaknesses, deal with difficulty and failure, and build a growth mindset. Student self-efficacy and independence should be prime considerations in planning, lesson execution, and follow-up so that students move through the grades becoming increasingly motivated, confident, and autonomous learners prepared to succeed in the wider world.