Last winter, a group of 30 educators from across the Commonwealth came together to talk about The Opportunity Myth, a new report from TNTP that delves into student experiences in five diverse school systems across the country. (Read more about our discussion here and here.)

The research findings certainly made for an interesting day of discussion. But discussion is just the beginning, and one day isn’t enough to truly problem-solve together in ways that result in lasting change. That’s why this fall, we’re back for more. We’re launching a new Co-Lab for Innovation that offers a chance for educator teams to tackle some of the complex challenges identified by The Opportunity Myth over the course of an entire school year.

Here’s the story: We are looking for 8-10 teams of Massachusetts educators to engage in a yearlong cross-district learning opportunity to increase opportunities for students to engage in risk-taking and critical thinking as a regular part of their school experiences. Teams will plan and implement action plans around big questions like, ‘What does complex, engaging, grade-level and beyond work look like?’ ‘How can we support all students to reach this high bar?’ and ‘How do school structures and cultures support educators in their journeys to do this work?’ Co-Labs offer educators the chance to work across different schools and even different districts to learn from each other’s experiences and problem-solve collaboratively on topics of shared interest. Teams will come together for four in-person meetings and three virtual meetings throughout the school year, and each team will receive a $3,000 mini-grant to support their work.

Interested? Applications are now open for school or district teams (3-5 educators per team, including at least one teacher and one administrator). Teams will be accepted on a rolling basis with September 15th being the priority deadline (extended deadline 10/3). Learn more about the Teacher Collaborative’s previous Co-Labs for Innovation and this year’s opportunity, and submit an application today. 

Last winter, we brought together a group of 30 educators from across the Commonwealth to talk about the findings of The Opportunity Myth, a report published last year by TNTP. (Read more about that event.) 

The Opportunity Myth is hardly a light read: It forced us to take a hard look at how many students are not getting what they need and deserve in our classrooms. The teachers who met in February found that the research findings spoke to them in some respects more than others. But together they were driven to make positive changes for their students by reaching outside their own school communities and learning alongside colleagues in other schools, districts, and even sectors. Here’s what they talked about:

Raising the rigor of assignments requires more time and opportunity dedicated to this and deeper teacher collaboration. The word “overwhelming” came up repeatedly when teachers talked about the challenge of presenting their students with consistently grade-appropriate assignments. Teachers spoke of spending hours adapting their mandated curricula and figuring out the right questions to ask to make it sufficiently challenging. As one teacher said, “My interpretation of the standards might not be where it needs to be yet. What is it we’re aiming for in real, concrete, ‘show me’ terms?” Above all, teachers agreed that they didn’t see a deep, shared understanding of the standards among their colleagues. Learning walks could be a powerful tool to share ideas, as well as more time dedicated to collaborative planning—but many teachers felt that their current shared planning time wasn’t being used productively. This time shouldn’t be focused on logistics, but rather on strengthening a common understanding of the standards, aligning content both vertically and horizontally with colleagues across grade-level and subject teams, and building a more collaborative teacher culture. There’s a ton of potential in collaborative planning, the teachers agreed—but that potential isn’t yet being met in most of their schools. 

Struggle is important—but how, when, and how much? Teachers agreed that “productive struggle” was important, and wanted to use collaborative planning time to address this more concretely: They suggested spending time discussing what productive struggle looks like and how to plan for it and support students through it. There was also an appetite for test driving techniques for stepping back and giving students more control. Many teachers felt this would help them get more comfortable taking their hands off the wheel a little bit in their classrooms.

For true engagement, students need to see themselves in the materials—and they need to see the world beyond their classrooms and communities. Students know best when a lesson is engaging, the teaches agreed—but it takes courage and confidence to ask them (and then to use their feedback productively). Teachers who taught using scripted curricula found consistent engagement even more challenging, since their students naturally gravitated toward some lessons more than others and they didn’t have much control, if any, over the presentation of content. But the teachers felt strongly that if they’re bored teaching content, their students would also be bored, so they were eager to consider ways to “mix it up” in their classrooms, from asking one or two provocative questions instead of twenty mundane ones to leveraging small stuff (like who’s on the classroom walls and what kinds of current events are discussed) to make their classrooms more engaging learning spaces. Cultural relevance plays a role here: Teachers felt certain that students need to see themselves represented in the content in order to be deeply engaged, but they also felt that students need to have exposure to experiences that are different from their own. Engagement requires both representing students’ communities and cultures and pushing them beyond those places.

High expectations are essential, but it isn’t easy to change the narrative once students have been labeled. “What are we missing when we ‘dumb it down’ for students?” asked one teacher. “Why not give them all the same high level standard?” Teachers generally agreed that this was the right goal, but how exactly to do this—and how to convince colleagues (especially those who had been teaching remedial coursework for years) to do so—was a more complex question. It was challenging to raise the bar for all students while also meeting students’ individual needs, for example. And for many teachers, students, and families, labels like “high achiever” or “low achiever” were often deeply rooted and hard to shake, especially for older students. “We struggle with the teacher who says ‘my kids can’t do it,” said one teacher. As many pointed out, teachers don’t wake up every day thinking they have low expectations, but labels like “special ed” or “C student” all influence teachers’ expectations over time, and teachers need help recognizing the ways they may be communicating and reinforcing these identities in their classrooms. 

System-level change is required to truly shift expectations. Many teachers in the room felt that the entire A-F grading system needed to be overhauled, perhaps to focus on competencies, and to make grades more meaningful and less transactional. There was also enthusiasm for equity audits at the school and system levels, but teachers wanted to ensure that these would be productive in practice, not merely a box to tick. As part of this process, many teachers felt that there was a real need for deep conversation around how institutional racism, as well as individual biases, play out in schools and influence expectations and outcomes.

At the end of this full day, teachers were buzzing with ideas to take back to their schools and school systems. Even as the tables were being cleared, many stayed on, connecting with colleagues from other schools to plan ahead: They discussed how to work together to raise the cognitive demands they place on their students, and how collaborative planning time could be used more productively to address assignment and instructional quality; they considered pushing their districts to take on equity audits; they planned future opportunities to visit each other’s schools and learn from what’s working well. 

In the fall, teams of educators will come back together to take on some of these challenges over the course of a new school year, as part of a new Co-Lab. We’re excited to see where it all leads. Stay tuned for more details to come!

At the Teacher Collaborative, we bring together teachers from across the Commonwealth who are passionate about addressing the most complex challenges of their work. That’s why when we read The Opportunity Myth, a report by TNTP exploring how well schools are preparing students to reach their aspirations for themselves, we decided to gather educators to discuss, think, and respond to the findings. 

In following 5,000 students in five diverse school systems, TNTP found that while more than 90 percent of students say they want to go to college, most are not being prepared for to meet that goal. Almost across the board, students are receiving assignments that are far below grade level; they’re not deeply engaged in their schoolwork most of the time; and many are not being given a chance to reach a higher bar. And while this proves true for students of all backgrounds, students from low-income families, students of color, students with mild to moderate disabilities, and English language learners bear a heavier brunt of the disadvantage.

TNTP is clear that it isn’t on the shoulders of teachers alone to address these issues, but teachers must be part of the conversation. We wanted to know how teachers would respond to these findings, whether the research would ring true with what they see every day, and if so, how they would mobilize to address it. 

To find out, we got a room full of educators together to talk. Like all Teacher Collaborative events, it was a diverse group: Teachers, school leaders, and administrators came in school-based teams from district, charter, private, and parochial schools, representing communities from Greater Boston to Cape Cod and western Massachusetts. Members of TNTP’s team joined us to talk through the research, answer questions, and listen in on the discussion. To the 30 educators in the room, we posed the question: How do we ensure that all students have access to school experiences that set them up to meet their aspirations?

The teachers spent the day digging into that question, and what it would mean in their schools and classrooms. At a high level, here’s what they had to say:

1. Raising the rigor of assignments requires more time and opportunity dedicated to this and deeper teacher collaboration. 

2. Scaffolding is critical, but it’s a difficult skill and teachers need support to do it effectively.

3. Struggle is important—but how, when, and how much? 

4. For true engagement, students need to see themselves in the materials—and they need to see the world beyond their classrooms and communities. 

5. High expectations are essential, but it isn’t easy to change the narrative once students have been labeled.

6. System-level change is required to truly shift expectations. 

In the next blog post in this series, we’ll share more on what the teachers had to say about each of these themes—and how they’re laying the groundwork for an exciting Co-Lab, launching in the fall!

On Friday December first, we attended a convening of educators from across the state organized by four teacher leaders with the support of Education First Consulting. The day featured videos of the four teacher leaders, a keynote by National Teacher of the Year Sydney Chaffee, a panel from the Revere Educators Leadership Board, and some planning activities to help attendees think about how to implement or improve teacher leadership opportunities in their schools and districts. 

Kat and I worked with Kevin Cormier to lead a session about teacher voice and how - and why - teachers should be part of decision-making outside of their classrooms. We first met Kevin, who teaches 7th and 8th grade math at North Middlesex Regional School District, when he joined the Teacher Advisory Cabinet at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. In Kevin's words:  “For the first nine years of my teaching career, my focus was within the four walls of my classroom. In my tenth year I got involved in MA DESE’s Teacher Advisory Cabinet (TAC). I had no idea that such groups even existed, but once I was part of one, I was hooked. It rejuvenated me when I didn’t even know I needed it. Now I see a whole new landscape of opportunities for teachers beyond the classroom that can give us new skills, knowledge, connections and inspiration that ultimately help us be even better in the classroom.” 

Kevin's description of being exposed to a whole new world of opportunities that he previously didn't know existed is central to the reason we believe the Teacher Collaborative is so needed. Educators need a space - virtual and in-person - to share and learn about opportunities that are fun, interesting, and fulfilling - both personally and professionally. Kevin is a member of our Educator Council; he is one of over 50 educators who are informing our vision, shaping our work, and making sure we stay true to what teachers really want and need.

At the event, Kat and I were proud to release a new guide for district and school leaders called Building a Sustainable Structure to Elevate Teacher Voice. This guide represents our best advice to anyone thinking about how they might include educators' voices in decision-making whether through establishing an advisory, running focus groups, or conducting a survey. 

We decided to use our presentation time at the event to focus less on the nuts and bolts (which can be found in the guide) and more on what we see as an essential first step: starting with the why. To do that, we walked people through a three-part activity:

1. What is a "hot topic" you are currently thinking about? In order for teachers' voices to be incorporated authentically, you need to start with initiatives you are already working on or thinking about.
2. What does the research say? Part of making the case for why teachers should be included in decision-making or other leadership opportunities is being able to point to research and examples. We designed an activity that allowed participants to read through some snippets of research and choose which ones resonated most for them.
3. What's your teacher leadership story? The other part of making the case has to do with the heart, as opposed to the mind. What short, memorable anecdote could you share that demonstrates why teacher leadership matters to teachers? To students? To school leaders? To the profession?

We would love to hear from anyone who is using our guide. Please email us with follow-up questions or suggestions!  maria@theteachercollaborative.org 

Like many educators, I used this summer as a chance to take some PD. I had the opportunity to participate in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s (IHI) Improvement Coach Professional Development Program. IHI is a nonprofit focused on improving healthcare outcomes by providing training, consultation, and research to governments as well as large and small health organizations across the world. And they happen to be in my backyard of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Improvement science is their main business--how do we get better so we can do better? Improvement science is all the rage in healthcare with hospital CEOs, doctors, nurses, and training programs for anyone interested in the healthcare field. It’s starting to make its way into education through the Carnegie Foundation’s work on Networked Improvement Communities (they published the 2015 book Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better).

Whether you know about improvement science or not, it will feel very familiar to any educator. It’s basically an inquiry cycle. You focus on a problem and unpack its causes, you come up with a theory about how you could improve it, you try it out, collect some data, review it, and then decide if you should keep going or make another change.

Although the structure was familiar, there were some pieces that really stuck with me and we’re building into our Co-Labs for Innovation model:

1. There’s a common sense of urgency. We know that time matters and while we’re trying to perfect something that means some students aren’t getting our best. This couldn’t be more true in healthcare where they’re working to reduce misdiagnosis or improve ambulance response times. That sense of urgency is what’s driving them to focus on learning to improve, not designing gold standard research methods. We need to focus on trying something different and we need an environment and community that supports this. Even if something is proven to work, the chances of it working in a particular (fill in the blank--school, classroom, subject, etc.) are slim. A motto that was frequently repeated was, “What can we test by next Tuesday?”

2. Data collection can be simple and it should be frequent. We can only improve as quickly as we can collect data to tell us if we’re headed in the right direction. There is a place for end of year data and outcome measures, but we miss opportunities to improve if we wait until the end. We have to think about “good enough” measures that will give us an indication of if we’re on track. If those are collected yearly, then we should challenge ourselves to think about how we can collect them monthly instead. And if they’re collected monthly, then we should find a way to get them weekly.

3. Think about making real, sustainable change rather than just adding “more.” It’s easy to see change if you add more to a problem--more time, more resources, more training. But when that “more” goes away (as it always does because we’re all working with limited time, resources, energy) the change does too. We have to disrupt the process--do something new, switch the order, remove a step. If you think of a flow chart of what you’re currently doing, then real, sustainable change requires you to rework that flow chart.

4. Change is hard for everyone and that makes it even more important to remember why it matters. One hospital had a “quiet at night” policy. The staff hated having to talk in hushed tones and felt as though upper management was the Quiet Police. In developing their goal for an improvement cycle, however, they honed in on the real focus which was to help patients receive at least six hours of uninterrupted sleep because it was known to greatly improve patient recovery. Being clear on their goal and why it mattered led the team to a whole different set of changes to try rather than focusing on not talking above a whisper. This was also a reminder to me that change is personal and that’s all the more reason why teachers need to be empowered to lead the changes in education.

A teacher recently told me he likes to spend the summer thinking about the pebble in his shoe, that thing from the past year that he didn’t get right and wants to do differently in the new year. I think there’s a lot we can learn from improvement science about how to get better. At the Teacher Collaborative, we believe we can all learn more and be #bettertogether. I can’t wait to see what the educators in this community come up with in the new school year.