13 minute read
Trending: Hard Stop on “Learning Loss”
Trending
PJ Caposey
Hard Stop on “Learning Loss”
Anyone that knows me understands that I believe in the power of language and rhetoric. How we speak to each other and label things matters. The emphasis on language has manifested itself in schools in many ways and is supported by sociological studies, but the clearest example may be in the very common-sense approach we take to referring to “students with disabilities” as opposed to “disabled students”.
That simple shift in language detailed above matters, and as an educator, it should serve as a constant reminder that language matters—ALWAYS.
This is why I am so bothered by the term “learning loss”. First, an examination of the data shows that it is factually inaccurate. Very few students regressed during the COVID-19 Pandemic. This means that learning did occur. Now, to be transparent, learning may not have occurred at the levels we are accustomed to seeing—but learning was not lost. If anything, perhaps it was delayed.
Still, the sensationalized term has been propagated in the media and has led to vendors and potential partners with seemingly insatiable appetites to seize upon this “new” market. This has been amplified by the influx of Federal dollars through ESSER grants and has become something that is increasingly problematic in my opinion. With heightened community and vendor pressure and with increased revenue, I fear that districts and schools may be rushing into solving a problem that we are not entirely sure exists at this point.
I find this reaction problematic for three key reasons. First, I believe that reacting prematurely with new solutions to initial data sets ignores that we have quite literally met students where they are, ahead or behind, in their learning for years. Next and as mentioned above, we may be trying to solve a problem that does not even exist. Lastly, we need to more holistically examine the partners we are counting on to solve our problems, both when initially partnering and after we have already worked together for years, particularly if we are using grant dollars to fund this expenditure.
This Is What We Do
I have worked in a unit school district for nearly a decade and during this time we have operated under the same premise and conditions at the elementary level. At the beginning of each year, we use a variety of data points to ascertain the level of each student’s learning. Once we believe we have a solid view of the student”s mastery of designated content and skills, we adapt our practices to best serve each child.
In some cases, this looks like differentiated reading groups, in others, it may mean access to interventions to support learning, and in other cases, it just means that the teacher intentionally attempts to mitigate any potential learning gaps for students within their typical classroom environment. While I know many schools have slightly different protocols, I can assure you that most (if not all) schools assess student learning and adapt instruction to meet their students’ needs. This is already what we do. This is what we have been doing for many, many years.
So, this begs the question “why are we reacting to this situation differently?” This fall we benchmarked or assessed kids the way we have always done. Based on that data, we have determined what we are going to attempt to do to best serve each kid. The same as we have done for years!
My thought process on the concept of “learning loss” is best defined by asking some critical questions of the entire narrative behind “learning loss” and the
reactionary measures being taken to try and “fix” this problem:
1. Why should the circumstances of last year impact how we react to student data we have always collected and protocols already in place to address potential learning and achievement gaps?
2. How do we know this situation is worse or requires more resources and energy than our typical data which may have identified achievement gaps or other troublesome data? have never worked through a pandemic in public schools during the data and accountability era. For instance, both intuitively and through initial data analysis, it seems clear that students who were 100 percent virtual last year have larger learning gaps. Likewise, this pandemic has seemed to disproportionately impact students who traditionally struggle in school, exacerbating already existing learning gaps.
However, we have no idea what the data will show next year. The issue is
3. Assuming that “learning loss” is real, why have we waited for a situation such as this to give our students a new or better way to close achievement gaps and accelerate learning?
4. What if this is an opportunity for our staff to finally collaborate cross-grade level and cross-curricular to ensure their meeting students where they are, even if it is slightly delayed?
Solving The Wrong Problem
There is absolutely no way to know what will happen in schools this year since we that we have students that largely did not master concepts and skills they were NOT exposed to. Given a year of (hopefully) in-person instruction, the data may dramatically change. As Marzano argued so compellingly decades ago, a curriculum must be guaranteed and viable to produce consistent results. Our students were exposed to a curriculum that was anything but guaranteed and reliable last year, and thus their results, at best, are seemingly incomplete.
My argument is not to ignore the problem. In fact, it is the exact opposite.
Let’s be exceedingly mindful that students’ growth may have been impacted and let’s use that to tighten up every protocol we have and to ensure outreach from potential partners, I am not sure that many of them would be choosing to attack “learning loss” in the manner some are right now.
The bottom line is that this situation will be nuanced and contextual like nearly everything in education. We should take time to analyze this and create approaches that work for us and not be pressured into quick action...
that every intervention provided is done so with fidelity. I suggest that we give it everything we have for a year and if the gaps persist at the end of this year, then we go into problem-solving mode. I hypothesize, however, that simply upon exposure to face-to-face instruction of the content and skills necessary for success that many students will rebound without significant delay, cost, or intervention.
Why Are We Buying Right Now?
I have never done anything as a superintendent that I have felt great about afterward when I have been bullied into doing so by the media or pressured into doing so by a vendor. My purpose in asserting this point is that when schools consider their current situation without outside influences of the media, ESSER money, or the incessant An example I have used when illustrating this idea is to consider what a school or district would do if they learned an incoming group of first graders was significantly lower than the traditional group of students arriving at their school. I assume that they would ensure they enacted their standard protocols as well as possible. I doubt that they would adopt new policies, procedures, and enter into new partnerships as an immediate course of action.
The solution is not that we do nothing; it is that we do what we already have expertise in and execute at the highest level possible. If we are unsuccessful, then we need to take a different approach and attempt to problem solve the situation. The bottom line is that this situation will be nuanced and contextual
like nearly everything in education. We should take time to analyze this and create approaches that work for us and not be pressured into quick action that may include partnering with a great company that may just not be great for you to work with collaboratively.
Simply put, we must first identify the problems which we are currently facing within our districts. Then, and only then, can we understand the needs that are present and adequately evaluate what a potential vendor partner can bring in supporting our students. We were already oversold and underdelivered by many vendors pre-pandemic and we simply don’t have the time to do that now. In this way, we must be steadfast in finding vendors and leveraging our current vendors as partners in solving our nuanced local problems.
A Path Forward
1) Double down on what we do well
We know and have known for decades, that the greatest indicator of student success is strong classroom instruction. Now is not the time to dramatically change this through the implementation of new technology, new programs, and new processes. Now is the time to support our teachers in doing what they have done for years: meet students where they are with the best instructional strategies possible. It is time for leaders to support their instructional growth more than supporting the implementation of the next best thing.
2) Analyze and evaluate every system and process within the school
We already have processes and procedures in place for students who are struggling or for groups where gaps may exist. This is not the time to change those protocols. Instead, it is time to put every protocol into action and under scrutiny. Now is not the time to rush into change. Instead, it is the time to dive deep into analysis and determine what you are and have been doing well and what areas need work.
3) Analyze data with clarity and openmindedness throughout the year
The impact of this pandemic on academic outcomes may be broad-reaching and long-lasting OR may be short-lived and have relatively little impact. The bottom line is that we simply do not know at this time. As such, we must analyze all available data with intensity and an open mind. The data may clearly show at this time next year, after a year of face-to-face instruction, that the gaps created by this pandemic still exist. If that is the case, then we need to consider dramatically changing what we do. However, there is also the chance that the intervention and instructional
processes already in place begin to or even fully close gaps or at least bring them to pre-2020 levels.
4) Use the same vendor acquisition process you always have
When deciding who and how to partner with outside third parties, districts should have a relatively well-articulated process. What happens in many districts is that once a partner is “in,” they tend to stay in whether or not the service is being used or showing results. In the age of ESSER money (temporary money) getting into a potential “forever” partnership without a clear mechanism to measure success could cause a challenge for districts.
When an expenditure (particularly a revolving expenditure or one that occurs year after year) is added to the budget, it should be scrutinized.
To explain: when partnering with a third party (usually an ed-tech company) an extremely well-vetted and researched recommendation should be brought forward. When a new partner is added, districts need to make a clear delineation of how we are going to hold ourselves accountable in determining whether the partner is viable. This may look as simple as committing to working with this partner for three years, looking at performance indicators A, B, and C, and surveying staff to see their impressions on the viability of the resource. At that time, if the company is not providing additional value for the cost, we will move on from that partner.
5) Consider the bandwidth of your teachers
I know that our teachers are struggling right now. It is not that they are struggling to produce a great product for kids. They are struggling emotionally. They are fatigued, feel underappreciated, and the cumulative toll of this pandemic is impacting them greatly. This is not the time to create new systems to attack a problem that may well not exist (or exist to a much lesser degree) twelve months from now.
Whenever starting something new within a school, the capacity to withstand the change should be considered. Now, I am one that traditionally believes that we are capable of much more than we imagine and prefer to continually push forward than ever let the status quo prevail. Given that, I still think we need to go slow to go fast this school year.
Tackling the concept of “learning loss” with wholesale shifts in practice, protocol, and the scheme would most likely have an extreme impact on your staff this year more than most. Now is Additionally, as schools consider how to spend their ESSER dollars in a manner that addresses the academic aspect of learning but that does not consider the whole child is foolhardy. As schools, we must realize
the time to stay consistent and firm and allow teachers to do what they do best— serve kids at the individual level. Now is the time for leaders to do the same thing we ask our teachers to do—meet adults where they are and provide them the support and resources they need to be successful. Just like our kids deserve wins every day, we need to work to find wins for our staff.
6) Do not forget about the socialemotional impact of this pandemic
I also have an extreme fear that an overconcentration of resources to tackle “learning loss” would further amplify the social-emotional toll this pandemic has taken on our kids. Students who have been without normal interaction for a year being “intervention-ed” constantly will lose much of the peer interaction in less structured formats that they so desperately need right now. that every aspect of our students’ lives was impacted by the pandemic and work hard to heal the social-emotional wounds, as well as the academic delays that may have been caused.
Finally, we cannot forget the socialemotional impact that hearing the term “learning loss” has on teachers. As they’ve worked to change the way they instruct students dozens of times over the past year, many working harder than they ever have, they’re constantly bombarded with the narrative of “learning loss”—hearing that the work they’ve done wasn”t enough. If we want a path forward and don”t want to see the teacher shortage expand for years to come, this narrative must change.
Conclusion
I sincerely believe that this pandemic has changed nearly every aspect of
our society. It has, therefore, also had a profound impact on the education system. This article is not meant to assert anything contrary to that.
However, this crisis has changed so much of what we do that many schools, leaders, and educators are stuck in a reactionary mode. What schools need now more than ever is patience and protocols. Work the concepts that have worked for you in the past and scrutinize the results like crazy and be prepared to adjust.
We need to trust our system but be ready to adapt. I encourage all educators to embrace change and reject the status quo, but also to honor the systems that have brought us results in the past. Change for the sake of change— particularly in this environment—is not something that our schools nor our educators need.
PJ Caposey is an award-winning educator, author (Teach Smart and Building a Culture of Support), and sought-after speaker and consultant specializing in school culture, principal coaching, effective evaluation practices, and student-centered instruction. PJ serves as the Superintendent of Schools for Meridian CUSD 223 in Northwest Illinois and can be reached via Twitter @MCUSDSupe.
