Position Advisory Committee Conference Call - - Final Notes

September 19, 2012, 3:30–4:40 p.m. ET

Attendees: Tiffany Anderson, Mo.; Curtis Cain, Kans.; Mariann Helfant, N.J.; Chris Himsel, Ind.; Heidi Janes, Canada; Patricia Johnson, N.Mex.; Dave LaRose, Calif.; Linda Mariotti, Utah; Ben Shuldiner, N.Y.; and Marva Tutt, Md.

ASCD Staff: Judy Seltz, chief constituent services officer; David Griffith, director of public policy; Meg Simpson, project manager for constituent programs; and Alisa Simmons, project coordinator.

INTRODUCTION

David Griffith opened the call by thanking the participants for their time and giving a brief review of the existing topics from the calls on August 29, 2012, and September 12, 2012. It was stated that the focus of the day’s call was to dissect all topics under consideration, to identify one or two issues, and to begin fleshing out the committee’s general discussions related to the specifics of those issues.

A final conference call will be scheduled for the week of September 24, 2012. This call will be to affirm the decision on a topic to forward to the Board for its meeting in October.

EXISTING TOPICS

Griffith opened the discussion by stating that the general consensus of the committee was that all topics under consideration started to coalesce under two themes:

1.  Professional Practice: What are the expectations for recruiting, retaining, and evaluating educators? Under the following topics:

·  “Educator Effectiveness,” including school leaders.

·  “The Absence of Educators from the Decision-Making Process.”

·  “Recruiting and Retaining Educators.”

2.  The Student Perspective: What are the best practices to respond to and serve to student populations to meet their diverse needs in the world in the 21st century? This would include equity, access, opportunities, and success.

Griffith asked the committee if there were other issues they’d like to detail out. No new topics were proposed. ASCD staff asked the committee to fine-tune these topics and identify a resolution of a topic that the committee can affirm next week.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

The committee agreed that the topics put forth last week fall under the two categories: professional practice and the student perspective. They also agreed that almost all proposed issues could fall under these umbrella topics.

·  A committee member asked to flip the sequence of the existing topics, suggesting that the student perspective be listed first. All of the issues discussed in previous calls (21st century learning, equity, access, and success) define the professional practice piece.

·  Another committee member suggested starting with how different schooling needs to be for kids today. A majority of committee members agreed.

·  As a follow-up, a committee member stated that he also liked the umbrella heading of “The Student Perspective” and moving students to the top—which he thought was the purpose of these discussions, putting students first. A suggestion was made to make a visual word bubble flowchart with the word “student” in the center, which could be a way to look at this from a whole child perspective. A committee member commented that she liked the imagery of the diagram with the child in the center and other factors as a conduit of the global perspective to serve the child.

·  It was stated that, as an association, ASCD has a proven record and expertise about what is right for kids. Given what we know, what does that mean for professionals and can we shift the conversation to an educator mandate of viewing education from the lens of the student?

·  ASCD staff was asked whether the topics were too broad an umbrella and what else was expected from this committee. Did they need to further flesh out the topic, – specifically under professional practice, leadership, and the nature of change? What level of specificity was needed from these broad concepts?

·  ASCD staff stated that the themes were still too broad and the committee members needed to be more precise, specifically on the subissues under professional practice. In further discussion for the separate issues of “Professional Practice” and “The Student Perspective,” there needed to be more clarity, even if the committee agreed that the professional piece flows from the student piece.

·  A committee member offered his opinion that if we think of the diversity of kids in our schools (in special needs, languages, and developmentally), we have a concept that expectations for all kids are one and the same. An example position was proposed: the paradox of diversity in student population with the commonality of expectations.

·  Committee discussion moved forward with this topic of breaking down diversity. There was a suggestion to look at the student perspective when talking about diverse needs, including equity, access, opportunities, and success.

·  A committee member stressed not forgetting 21st century skills. The transition to the 21st century and the change from traditional education should be included in the discussion. These changes include school settings, personalized instruction, and flipped classrooms, along with technology.

·  The discussion continued about the structure of schooling, not just in technology, but in the replacement of traditional classrooms. A committee member sees bending of structures and creating new structures as an imperative.

·  A member questioned where the committee stood in the conversation, because the list is so long. She offered that perhaps there needed to be limitations on the number of targeted items. She preferred to focus on the proposed topic: the structure of schooling and how schools respond to diverse student needs.

·  ASCD staff refocused the conversation on the previous discussions, which included the structure of schooling, diversity, and serving diverse populations. The committee was told that the umbrella topic “The Student Perspective” still needed to be focused.

·  A committee member proposed breaking down “The Student Perspective” topic and to add to the component “structure of schooling.”

·  The committee was asked to remember the people-to-people aspect of schools because if we are not careful with how we state the position, our words can be misinterpreted. For example, the committee member felt that technology in schools is a tool and not a solution. We have to be precise, he said.

·  Committee members attempted to find another word for “structure” so that the position could be described as student-driven and not about stereotypes of brick-and-mortar schools.

·  “Adapting for educational success” was proposed. Another committee member agreed that “adapting” was a strong word because there is such a rapid pace of change and a high level of accountability. She offered, Methods of teaching and learning to meet students’ changing needs in a global community”?

·  ASCD Staff proposed replacing the word “structure” with “designing for learning.” The committee discussed the relevance of the word “design” in education. One committee member liked the word “designing” because it seemed to tie well with working around the word revolution. She stated that we’re 12 years in the 21st century and we need clearer language for people to finesse their own conversations about the future of learning.

·  Another committee member disagreed and stated that it was too broad. What are we to design— structures and curricula?

·  Some thought “designing for learning” was too strong. They questioned if the word “design” was too close to Wiggins and McTighe’s framework. Or are we asking, What are the next steps of Understanding by Design®?

·  ASCD staff asked the committee to think about how this position would be actionable for members in the context of the individual educator and how it will be realized.

·  Staff reassured the committee, explaining that this is a complicated process, which consists of 1) identifying an issue or topic; 2) recommending the issue or topic to the Board; 3) this issue being the topic of discussion leading up to and at the ASCD Forum; and 4) the ASCD Forum recommending this topic as a position for the Board to consider adopting.

·  A committee member proposed “designing schooling for today’s diverse students.” She felt this could include the professional practice piece and give clarity to students of this century. Another member agreed and stated he liked the word “learning” as opposed to “schooling.” He felt schooling reminded him of structures and systems and the traditional lens. Learning can be seen from a global, holistic, and more inclusive lens while including the student perspective. Learning is driven by students’ needs.

·  A committee member questioned whether learning is dependent on schooling structures (not brick-and-mortar, but the systems.) The general consensus was that the conversation was now simply parsing words. Another member stated that designing for learning moved them to think of Wiggins and McTighe’s framework and a narrow view of 20 kids in a classroom.

·  A committee member stressed the need to focus. She felt the conversation led to the theme of meeting the needs of the modern student and asked to get down to the one or two key areas of that redesign. Another committee member liked the term “modern” more than “diverse” but asked if that came with the stereotype of the kid plugged in with headphones.

·  Global diversity was raised as an issue. A committee member said that internationally, there may not be a lot of diversity in classrooms where everyone looks the same and comes from the same socioeconomic factors. A committee member challenged that traditional definition of diversity and asked the committee to consider the multiplatform ideal of diversity (different learners, levels of thinking, special education, etc.). The committee was urged to move to the idea that diversity should include diverse needs. This definition of diversity comes back to the whole child.

·  ASCD Staff weighed in by stating that they sensed there was a struggle with the complex and overwhelming student piece, because of all the facets. They asked the committee if the student piece was not so much an issue as it was context, a preamble to the whole child. If that is the case, the issue then becomes professional practice. Not to ignore the student perspective, but it is a given.

·  A committee member followed up by stating that we are all involved in this day to day and the student perspective is not a given. There are external factors driving our conversation. If we are to drive the conversation, then we have to have clarity of purpose and multiple pathways to stress this student perspective. Several committee members agreed.

·  Another committee member stated that when we say diverse, we mean the most diverse in every possible student need and our task of taking them from point A to the evolution of our entire practice. We are in the middle of a whole lot of change.

·  A committee member stated the need for more pathways and that these topics are all pathways to drill down the whole child. “The committee member asked if we were trying to find clarity in actionable whole child policy. They added we should not lose focus on the language we used before that was well-practiced.”

·  A committee member asked what was the best way to package or craft these ideas and to put them together so that the committee can individually react. ASCD staff was asked to craft language that the committee could consider through the meeting notes.

ASCD staff stated that this year’s process is a little different than it will be in the future. The Board decided to convene the ASCD Forum before the committee’s work began. In the future, the committee’s work will inform the Board if it should convene a forum.

ASCD staff will craft a question that will become actionable by the membership. Position Advisory Committee members who participated in these conversations will recognize their thinking, but the question may not necessarily reflect their words.

To help guide the conversation, the topic should be

·  Relevant to all educators all over the world.

·  Timely and currently of interest.

·  Narrow enough to keep the conversation focused but broad enough to encourage a variety of perspectives.

·  Actionable.

NEXT STEPS

·  Notes will be posted on the ASCD EDge® group. We encourage you to continue the conversation in the comments section.

·  Please review these notes to clarify your thoughts. We will be asking for feedback in the final call to make sure we are on the right path.

·  A Doodle poll will be sent. There will be a fourth call scheduled for the week of September 24.

Meeting adjourned at 4:34 p.m.