What is a Linchpin?

Linchpin literally means to keep the wheels from falling off.  In today’s society and multiple organizations a linchpin is someone who does more than keep the wheels from literally falling off.  They create value in the company.  They keep things moving metaphorically in the company.  And, they are indispensable components of any successful organization.

In every successful organization, linchpins served three primary functions.  First, they challenge ideas, people, and assumptions.  Second, they connect ideas, assumptions and people.  And third, they create new information and stronger groups formed from these connected individuals.

Linchpins serve critical purposes.  They challenge assumptions and create value for their organizations.  They are invaluable pieces of an organization and are not found in large numbers.  Linchpins certainly are not born.  Rather they are created over time through challenging situations, tackling wicked problems, and through pushing themselves to find a new insight into old problems.

We believe there is a need for linchpins in our society – and every organization and institution.  We wish to be linchpins.  We hope you do, too.  Our company was built to help others reach this goal.

Let’s work together to be indispensable.

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1MQHm3I

Learning: Either/Or No More

Before the start of the new school year, my family took a week-long vacation to Duluth, Minnesota.  We had never been there before, but were excited by cool temperatures in July, a beach in the Midwest, and the opportunity for a lot of family fun.  During the trip, we visited a children’s museum, a coastal lighthouse, the Aerial Bridge, the Great Lakes Aquarium, the Lake Superior Marine Museum, the Lake Superior Railroad Museum and so many other interesting places.

Throughout the trip, my family (five kids ages 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11) had a great time – and asked a lot of questions.  With each stop, we learned something.  It was a great trip!  It also reminded me that school may be a place, but learning is a process.  It can – and does – happen anywhere.  It happened as we spent 45 minutes learning about the locks and dams along the Great Lakes.  It occurred in the replica steam engine, and it certainly occurred standing on the beach of Lake Superior.

With each stop, new questions were asked and answers were sought.  We learned, we laughed, and we did it as a family.  Now, not all learning is family based, but it is personal.  What Grace (my 11-year-old) learned at the aquarium was different that what Elle (my 9-year-old) learned, but it all had value.  And don’t even get me started about all the train things I learned from Sam (my 7-year-old) at the old train depot.

Competency-based education does just what this family trip did.  It takes what is personal and connects learning to what is necessary.  There were a lot of science, math, English and social studies standards met while on vacation.  We learned because we wanted to, and ultimately, it will be deeper learning because of our interest.

Competency-based learning holds the potential to take each one of this moments and turn it into a learning experience.  We do not need artificial lesson, because real life did it for us.  Imagine all that can be learned, is learned, in a single day.

CBE can help us do it better, do it richer, do it deeper.

CBE can help us cross the bridge from “required to know” to “desired to know.”

The Aerial Bridge in Duluth, MN

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1UkfVYJ

Lead Yourself

Lead yourself with passion, purpose and perseverance.

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1K6BlQD

Does CBE Destroy Our Special Education System?

As I continue to think about competency-based education and the structural changes that go along with fully supporting it, I am concerned about its impact on the current special educational system.  For students to receive special education services, they must have a disability - medical or learning.  If a student is to be designated as having a learning disability, then the student must demonstrate discrepancy from his/her peers.  As we work through the suspected disability process, the team must look at exclusionary factors, such as lack of instruction.

I am concerned that in a competency-based system ("anytime, anyplace, any how, any pace") where each student could be involved in different learning experiences, there will no longer be any peer comparisons.  If students no longer are accessing the same academic content at the same time, I do not think that special education can make any peer academic comparisons.

And if there cannot be any peer comparisons, what happens to special education?  Do those students who do have at least some difficulty in understanding the material no longer have access to support services?  Do those support services take on a different focus and expectation?  And for district leaders, what happens to the weighted funding that supports those services?

Competency-based education provides a new paradigm for student learning, teacher effectiveness, and district leadership; as such, many current systems, such as special education, will clearly be changed by its implementation.  I believe we need to strongly consider the system structures we currently have in place and how competency-based education may change them, so we can be mindful of the implications.

(Thanks to Josh Griffith, Collins-Maxwell 6-12 Principal, and Jen Sigrist, Van Meter Director of Teaching and Learning, for the conversation that inspired these thoughts.)

Course Time to Competencies - What's the Conversion Ratio?

In Iowa House File 2380, the section on competency-based education states, "the rules shall allow a school district or an accredited nonpublic school to award high school credit to a student upon the demonstration of required competencies for a course or content area, as approved by an appropriately licensed teacher.  The school district or accredited nonpublic school shall determine the assessment methods by which a student demonstrates sufficient evidence of the required competencies."

The Iowa Senate education reform bill offers similar language.  It is a bold and appreciated step in moving the educational system in Iowa forward.  I just have a few questions as we move from a time-based to a competency-based system.

We no longer need the CBE "credit" waivers, correct?  That's an easy one.  But . . .

How do we determine how much credit to award a course, if it is no longer measured in time?  This is a critical question to me.  If teachers and districts are allowed to create credit-bearing courses based on competencies, how will the DE track and monitor the number of courses?  This poses a concern for the annual curriculum accreditation process, as a district could 'inflate' the number of courses offered by reducing the number of competencies within each course.

It also opens up new opportunities, as we might be able to introduce new courses or mini-course for our students.  In a competency-based system, I am excited that we can open up new opportunities of learning for our students.  But the issue remains.  Until there is a common definition of "competency" and a common process to create courses based on competencies, has the Iowa Legislature opened up a Pandora's box for the Iowa Department of Education?

I trust we can solve this problem.  I just hope others are recognizing it.

Comprehensive Planning

As superintendent, I feel it is my duty to continually think of the path of progress for my district.  In reality, I know there are many paths trying to improve our local educational system - each teacher, support staff members, board member, or administrator may have a slightly different vision of what progress looks like and should be.  Through time and discussion, we have learned that collectively we can move forward faster, stronger, and better than with un-aligned forces and interests.  (Seems like an appropriate time for a shout out to my alignment guru, Brad Niebling!)

So, as I work to understand and align the various passions, philosophies, and practices in my district, I also think about the forces in the state at large.  At a recent Curriculum Network meeting at my AEA, we discussed some fairly strong competitive forces at the Department of Education, in the state Legislature, and throughout Iowa's school districts.

For education reform or transformation or simply improvement to move forward as fast, as strong, as good as possible we must align our forces and our energies.  How do we have comprehensive improvement when we are debating third grade retention at the same time we espouse competency-based education?  It seems to me the two are not philosophically compatible, nor practically compatible.  Yet, strong forces on both sides leave gridlock, status quo and inertia.

Further, we continue to learn more about the Smarter Balanced consortium and its instruction/assessment suite of tools, yet we also debate the merits of specific end-of-course exams.  Do they work together, or against each other?  Further, in a truly competency-based system, there may not even be courses to have end-of-course exams.

In each Iowa district, each teacher and administrator is required to have an individual professional development plan aligned to a building professional plan that is aligned to the district plan that is aligned to the district comprehensive school improvement plan (and the Iowa Core implementation plan).  With all of this aligned planning, the expectation is forces are united and greater progress occurs.  I believe the same expectation is needed at the state policy level.

We need to work to come together - then work together - so our efforts this far do not come undone.

Licensure and Individualized Learning

As I continue to think about expanding the capacity of competency-based education, proficiency-based education or individualized learning, I continue to struggle with several obstacles.  One main obstacle for me is the licensure issue.  As we continue to support the philosophy of "anytime, everywhere" learning, we need to consider the impact to, and from, our practices.  I am extremely supportive of an all-encompassing curriculum of 'learning' at it truest sense, while still ensuring that the Iowa Core is completely learned.

My struggle remains how we as a system will be able to document 'learning'.  I believe the Board of Educational Examiners will need to revisit its licensure policies.  Districts like the one I serve currently do not have the teachers licensed to address the multitude of learning pathways that will be formed with individualized education.  In fact, no district does.  What if my students want to learn Arabic or marine biology or rocket science?  Are my teachers currently certified for that?

I think the BOEE and the DE need to think about how they plan to address this concern.  The momentum is building, and the conversation about this needs to begin.