Last night, I was part of a conversation with a group of 20-somethings who are, God willing, approaching parenthood in the next couple of years. The conversation turned to school choice: where they will likely send their children to school when the time comes. This led to dialogue, not debate, about our local school systems.
I am quite partial to the district in which I have been employed for nearly 30 years, but I didn’t find myself in a position to defend or rally for choosing FMCSD – the district where each of these 20-somethings graduated from. There was conversation (again, nothing confrontational) about the pros and cons of local school districts. It was interesting to hear the perceptions held by each person in the conversation.
The piece of information that I didn’t add to the conversation was this: unfortunately, none of these school systems have what Robert Pondiscio describes in an article he released earlier this week: Good Schools Don’t Beat Staff Turnover. They’re Build For It. (Thank you, Corrine, for sharing the article!) Each local school system has its strengths and weaknesses, but none has reached a status of “paragon of excellence”… yet.
In the article, Pondiscio makes the point that staff turnover, among other culprits, often receives the blame for unsuccessful schools. Rather than blaming staff turnover, he argues, we might blame the lack of a system (my interpretation of his words). He challenges readers to think about the inevitability of staff turnover; rather than allowing that inevitability to shoulder the blame for lack of success – or sustaining success – we should ask ourselves to look at school systems that sustain success regardless of turnover. He also reminds readers that this is “…a working hypothesis based on my observations and experience” and “If readers disagree, see omissions, or know of schools or districts that deserve closer study, I hope they’ll say so.” What a healthy way to encourage and invite civil discourse!
The entire article is well-worth a read… and a re-read! The following three paragraphs, in my opinion, are where Pondiscio really hits it out of the park:
“Durable schools tend to share a clearly defined instructional core. Not a “philosophy.” Not a mission statement. An operating system. They use common materials, sequence content deliberately, and define effective instruction in observable terms. New teachers are acculturated and trained into an existing model rather than invited to invent their own. Durability begins with instructional clarity.
If instructional clarity is the foundation, consistency is the structure. Schools that sustain results minimize variation in the things that matter most, particularly foundational literacy and numeracy instruction. They monitor whether the curriculum is actually delivered. They coach toward specific practices. When drift appears, they correct it.
Fragile systems rely on great teachers. Durable systems assume ordinary teachers and build routines strong enough to support them. Durable systems assume turnover and design accordingly.”
Pondiscio writes about a topic that fuels my passion for a better tomorrow in education: creating sustainable systems that are built on consistency and clarity for all tiers of instruction. This line from above bears repeating:
These systems know that at all players in the system – students, families, teachers, support staff, administrators – have clarity about what is expected behaviorally & academically, and there is clarity about how expectations are supported & carried out. There is an understanding that relationships are at the core of everything. At all tiers of instruction the use of common materials, language, data to drive instruction, and evidence-aligned practices are the norm.
