Planning: What is the MOST important thing?

The entirety of chapter two, titled Planning that Ensures Academic Achievement, talks about planning to ensure academic success. In all honesty, this chapter again seems too short and filled with assumptions about students and the teachers reading this book.

Begin with the End, which mirrors the educational philosophy of Understanding by Design, simply reminds teachers to form an objective instead of just creating an activity. Again, my disappointment is that any well-educated, Masters-holding teacher who applies what they know already does this. His technique is a great synopsis of the planning by design framework, or any other philosophy that flows from unit planning to lesson planning. The only important question he asks here is: Why are you teaching the material that you are teaching?

The 4 M's expand on what objectives should be and what objectives should look like when used in lesson planning. Objectives should be manageable, measurable, made first, and most important. No arguments here; teachers need to think about if an objective is manageable for one lesson, or if there should be more time allotted for certain skills (much of this comes from experience in the classroom and knowing your students). Is the objective measurable? How do you know when students master the objective? This is pertinent; the best teachers hold students (and more importantly, themselves) accountable for the learning that is happening in the classroom, and a measurement system of some sort must exist in order to push and motivate students to learn. But some of these measurements may be goals that students write themselves, or portfolios. That detail was left out of Lemov's field study notes. Made first again reflects the idea that teachers begin with the end in mind, which is the exact goal of the Understanding by Design framework; if you've never read this before, you should really read it (Understanding by Design by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe). Whether you agree or disagree, it's important to know about the philosophies in the field. In addition, it will give you more structured detail than Lemov. In his text, most important is in regards to whether the lessons focus on the most important things on the path to college.

The last two M's are disheartening to me. The only reason that made first does not sit well with me is how he says an indication that the objective was retrofitted to an activity is if a teacher uses a standard for the lesson. While I agree you cannot retrofit objectives or standards, and they cannot just be applied in isolation without forming a theme or building on previous learning, the presence of a standard is not an indication that the objective was fabricated to fit an activity. The other beef that I have with most important has to do with his exclusive mindset of what is important for students. Is the path to college the only thing that should be taught in classrooms? I vehemently fight that education should be create life-long learners and students who love learning, regardless of post-secondary plans. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character- that is the goal of true education."

In post it, Lemov talks about posting the objective in clear view so that all students can see what is expected, review the objective, and be reminded that the objective is the goal. While this is a good idea, this would mostly (and almost exclusively) be successful for secondary native English-speaking students. Younger students and students who are English language learners would need more support in understanding what the objective means and why the objective is posted.

Shortest Path talks about creating the shortest path in lessons to meet the objective. However, Lemov pairs this with talking about how champion teachers pair this shortest path with enriched activities set at an appropriate pace; these are critical caveats to walking the shortest path. He also specifies that almost any method of teaching are neither good nor bad, except in how they relate to the goal. If my objective talks about creating critical thought and debate, lecture is not the best style of delivery, whereas a Socratic seminar may be more beneficial. This is again, something that all educated and experienced teachers learn at some point in their career.

Double Plan is actually a new technique that I have not heard of before; the first in his book yet! Most teachers plan what they will be doing as the teacher, but champions plan what the students will be doing. When I read that, I thought at first, 'So simple! We make worksheets, they are taking notes, they are answering questions...' Then I read on and realized that I plan what students are doing at certain points when I should be thinking about what students are doing in between these points as well. Good point, Mr. Lemov! In my teaching placement I have already used this technique to revamp my unit lessons for the content on magnets, and the unit went much more smoothly due to my awareness of what the students would be doing at all points in the lesson. Off-task behavior, boredom, and inattention declined greatly when I was teaching about magnets because I planned what the students would be touching, thinking, writing, or saying at any point in the lesson.

Draw the Map is a highly controversial topic. Basically, Lemov says a teacher must plan the layout of their room while asking these questions:

When should students interact?
How should students interact?
What interactions support learning objectives?

Some of his other questions exhibit a bias against social interaction in the classroom and his 'perfect' map of a classroom shows students sitting in rows by twos facing the front. This intrigues me for several reasons. Obviously, there is a secondary bias to this map, considering that a lot of elementary schools have tables and must use them. This map also shows an underlying belief that students are there to work, and that they cannot work in groups larger than two effectively without getting side tracked. A teacher-dominant approach is present in that this map has all the students facing the front at all times, and has students sit with as little connection points with others as possible. The walking route of the teacher is not planned well in this map; research shows that teacher who move around (and don't just stand at the front of the classroom) manage behavior more effectively and have higher student engagement. With the map drawn by Lemov, the teacher would struggle to walk up and down the aisles and be able to see what most students are doing at all times. Lastly, this map does not take into account the community or the ambiance that a classroom can create for specific lessons when arranged in several ways. When doing a Socractic seminar, a teacher can make an inner circle and an outer circle. When students are taking two sides of a debate, the students could sit on one side of the room, facing the other. If instruction is going to happen in centers, then clusters of four may prove more conducive to instruction. The set-up of the classroom should always flow from the isntruction, and a rigid, two-desk column system may prove more problematic than beneficial.

Whether any teacher or professional agrees or disagrees with Lemov, planning is the most important thing for a teacher, and not enough credit can be given to those who prep, plan, and revamp lessons in advance.

Reference:
Lemov, Doug. (2010). Teach like a champion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Techniques to Set "High" Academic Expectations?

Despite the fact that I had a few issues with some of the ways in which Lemov presents material previously in this chapter, he ends the chapter with good sentiments.

 Technique three, 'Stretch it', talks about how to challenge students to think deeper when they are answering questions. This can be done by asking students how they got the answer, how to change that answer into a different unit, etc. There are many ways to get a student to stretch their answer and their thinking. All teachers should be doing this on a regular basis because a correct answer is not enough; educators must make sure that students are thinking critically, and that they are not just remembering facts that they spit back out when context clues steer them towards that answer. Students do not have a true mastery until they can reframe, think critically, and evaluate the answers to questions in order to conclude whether they make any sense. Again, this is kind of Teaching 101 in my opinion, but many educators don't practice this already. (If you don't do this, you really really should! It's so valuable! And I think it's intriguing to find out how my students are thinking!)

His fourth technique, 'Format Matters', is somewhat of a soapbox moment for him. He complains about teachers who use rap songs in lieu of classical poetry in the classroom (or other substitutions in order to get students to relate and engage). He doesn't seem to have a problem with the use of colloquial materials, just when other materials are not also used in order to help students discover unknown academic passions from these experiences. Honestly, I think it depends upon the goal of the lesson and the students that are in the classroom.

In his fifth technique, 'Without Apology' Lemov overtly describes how teachers can negatively frame some material for students by saying, "This is boring, so let's get through it," or "I know you guys will hate this, but..." and rather describes how many students may respond well to materials in positive ways... if we let them by framing everything we present in the most positive light, and by exposing them to a full array of material instead of watering down materials. Please note, when I say watering down, I mean diluting or throwing out for the purpose of making teaching easier. Using scaffolds or gradually easing students into a topic or task is not diluting, that may be knowing your students well and setting them up for success.

Introducing materials in an engaging way, regardless of how a teacher feels, is hard, but it is opening up the possibility of being surprised by your students. Some students may love classical poetry or the historical facts surrounding an event, but if a teacher never gives the student a chance to explore and discover due to a preconceived notion about the students' demographics or background experiences, then the teacher may cause a student to miss out. Notice, I said notions about a student's demographic information, not a student's background knowledge. This must be enhanced for some students to access the content, and this takes extra work. But the work is well worth the effort, when done thoughtfully.

For example, this semester I am in a classroom that has 50% native English speakers and 50% native Spanish speakers. Think about the vocabulary enhancement needed for these students to all be able to engage with each other, regardless of whether they choose to engage in Spanish or in English (they are receiving instruction in Spanish half the day, and English the other half). The content requires the use of specialized words that students need to know, and that is the challenge for all of the students in the classroom. Do we choose to not teach these words, because we don't think the students can understand? Of course not. We scaffold instruction, act words out, use videos and visuals, create hands-on experiences, and try to get students to talk to each other. Not only does this allow them to practice academic dialogue, but the students who can explain what they have learned are true masters of the content.

Reference:
Lemov, Doug. (2010). Teach like a champion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

True Teaching Champions

As you know, the next book is Teach Like a Champion by Doug Lemov.

The introduction fascinated me with the profiles, statistics, and the way in which he frames the work as field notes. The facts and charts at the end of the introduction captured my imagination the most.

Unfortunately, as soon as I read past the introduction, I became disappointed for several reasons.

Many of his examples are incomplete, confusing, and do not explicitly demonstrate fully the concept the he tries to communicate. If I had not already learned many of these techniques in several of my education classes, I would have no idea what he really means or how I could apply this to practice.

He also dis includes extremely important factors in these tactics. For 'No Opt-out" he forgets to mention how to pick which students to call on in class, how to scaffold questions to move from easy to hard, or the fact that calling on only one students does not ensure that all the other students are learning. One student answering the question correctly is a review, not insurance that all students know what one student knows. Even if you use this strategy well, there will be students who will still not get the word correctly if you do not know how to teach using multiple means of representation or any real world applications.

While this book seems to be a great introduction to teaching in the classroom, genuine champions do much more than 'no opt-out' and 'right is right.' True champions balance IEPs with differentiated instruction in reading groups where students are all working on areas of weakness while continuing to building up areas of strength. A real champion among teachers can tell anybody at any time what the five areas of reading are, and how they teach those five areas in their classroom. True champions collaborate well with other teachers in order to ensure that every student is getting attention from teachers with the right expertise to ensure success. Champions know that they don't have all the answers, and are on a lifelong quest of learning in order to find the answers. Many teachers revamp lesson every year in order to make sure that the needs of every learner are met, and spend copious amounts of time observing and studying their own students in order to ensure that they actually know the true needs of the students in their class.

While I have great respect for Lemov, and I know these are good strategies that I use, so far his strategies are just tips and hints to make already great masters of teaching content into better teachers. None of these strategies help teachers teach better lessons, they simply help already great teachers ensure student retention and engagement. Nothing can replace a teacher's knowledge of the material or their ability to reach the students by knowing each student individually. I would not call this book Teach Like a Champion; I would call this book Basics on Improving Student Retention.

I would say my biggest disappointment is his emphasis on getting his students into college and improving test scores. Where is the love of learning, and cultivating life long learners? Where does he teach the independence students need to find solutions on their own in the real world? I hope to see this more in the upcoming pages of his book.

Reference:
Lemov, Doug. (2010). Teach like a champion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.