Ken Williams argues in Chapter Seven of “Ruthless Equity” that educators do not hold the same standards for all students, and that learning objectives are inequitable and insufficient. Teachers and educators have to do the work to address inequities anywhere they see it at school, especially in their core instruction.
In Akron, Ohio, teachers in math are using the same approach my school is rolling out. “During the planning phase, we anticipate any misconceptions or questions that may arise, as well as different ways our learners will solve problems. Once we have that sketched out, we create scaffolded assignments” (164). Our school is asking us to complete “IPP” or intentional planning protocols. Our school asks us to take a lesson and similarly think through the areas students may struggle. We then create monitoring keys that can collect data on our “look-fors”, and identify places where we need to provide back pocket questions, or implement feedback. Taking the time to flesh out skills, objectives, and some common misconceptions has been beneficial in helping student learning. I have seen big changes in my whole-class show calls and highlighted student work, and it is easier to engage with the students on areas of improvement and areas of strength.
The IPP process ties into what Williams was talking about with the “four critical questions that guide the cycle of teaching, learning, and assessment: 1. What do we expect every student to know and be able to do? 2. How will we know when students have learned it? 3. How will we respond when students haven’t learned it? 4. How will we respond when students already know it?” (139). In the text he bolded the first question, and I agree with Williams that identifying learning outcomes is a non-negotiable for equity. Not only do I think it helps for equitable teaching, but how can a teacher be prepared and in front of students if they don’t know what they are teaching or what the students should be doing? Not knowing feels like a recipe for disaster.
“There is no ‘substitute for’ or “working around” essential outcomes” (138). You have to identify the outcomes. Williams stamps you have to make a commitment and do the work. I think it can be easy to not look at all of the outcomes, or to skip one here and there. Sometimes it feels like teachers have so much to do, that taking the intentional time to pause and do that can be alot. Teachers might feel like they already know everything because they have done it before, or they have run this lesson before and they already get it. If it becomes forced, teachers will feel micromanaged and there might be pushback. I’ve seen this happen in my school, but I don’t fully understand why because fundamentally it makes sense. Teachers need to know what students are working toward each day.
While all this makes sense, there are things I struggle to understand and do myself. On 141 Williams asks: “when you remove ‘can they’? or ‘can’t they’? from the equation, you open the way for maximum levels of creativity, resourcefulness, problem-solving, innovation, and collaboration.” How do you get to that point though? Is it from professional development, a special will? He brings up this idea: “you’re still grappling with your love of how growth mindset sounds, while unwilling to embed growth mindset into your practice” (145). That is me. I know students need all grade level instruction, but again, how can one person do it all? I would LOVE to switch this mindset. How does a teacher track all the data for every kid constantly, especially when teaching more than 70+ per day. How do you provide scaffolds for every individual student.
Williams touched on Carol Dweck, and her idea on “growth mindset”- but when I read that, I remembered reading an article that has similar ties and connections. “If Grit Breeds Success, How Can I Get Grittier?” by Emily Matchar. This article defined grit, and discussed how grit predicts success. People who have grit are more likely to find success and work through tough situations. The article also named that grit could be learned. I tied this in because I asked myself, are the teachers Williams talks about in his book the ones who are raising the bar? Are they, the ones who are “starting with the CROWN, not with the kid” (170), grittier than me?
Hey, Anna, thanks for your post.
ReplyDeleteI like how you tied the IPP process to Williams' four questions, especially the first one. If we don’t know what we want students to learn, then how can we teach with clarity or intention? I also think the way you’re planning for misconceptions ahead of time is powerful. It shows you're thinking about all learners, not just those moving through a lesson. That kind of prep work really does create more equity in the room because it gives every student a real chance to grow.