What might be the most effective frame for communicating about curricular reform? Anecdotal evidence from leaders in the field – EdReports.org and TNTP, in particular – suggests that educators identify the term “curriculum” with “textbook,” which can send a prescriptive, reductionist message.92 By contrast, focusing on “instructional materials” as opposed to “textbook adoption” is more capacious and invites educators’ participation around a core of curricular artifacts, which they can supplement and adapt as needed. District and state leaders may want to consider using this broader term. Districts and states might also consider a formal recognition of schools that use blue-ribbon or first-in-class instructional materials, rather than a penalty upon schools that do not – creating a positive, rather than punitive, message.

Barbara Davidson is the executive director of StandardsWork an organization that helped create the Knowledge Matters Campaign. A campaign that has partnered with the SCORE and TNDOE to promote its preferred curriculum. In 2018 she wrote a piece that was meant to serve as a call to action. She closed a follows,

The time for action has come. The evidence for use of better instructional materials as a lever for education reform may well be scant, but it is already greater than the evidence justifying other reforms that have commanded far more time and money. Let’s build the new curriculum-based education reform plane as we fly it, absolutely capturing as much data as we can about use of different textbooks and materials, but also recognizing that districts already adopting high-quality curriculum are excellent research subjects from which much can be learned.

The point is, there are forces working to dictate to school districts what and how they teach. The fact that Common Core was a colossal failure makes little difference to them. If districts are to maintain more than a semblance of local control, they are going to have to get serious about curriculum implementation. It’s not a conspiracy theory when they tell you they are conspiring against you.

Too much of the first stages of this round of ELA curriculum adoption resembles 2014. Teachers are being told to go out and explore Wit and Wisdom on their own before the district clearly defines its instructional philosophy. it’s a strategy that all but ensures different levels of adoption.

As I’ve previously stated, now is not the time for intense district training on literacy adoption – hands are already full transitioning to remote learning – but leaving adoption to self-instruction is not a viable option either. It’s equally paramount that the district has a clear idea of what adoption looks like before training is launched. At present, there appears little evidence that such a concept exists or if it does, it runs counter to the recent edict of the school board.

On Friday, Dr. Battle announced in an email – more on that in a minute – that central office was about to undergo a restructuring. The position of CAO was going to be rolled up into a larger role as Chief of Schools and Academics. Little additional information is given about that position or how it will impact the C&I department.

Regardless of what happens on the Chief level, I think its imperative that Dr.Battle also identify an executive director of literacy who has a deep understanding of both literacy and systems and is aligned with her vision, as shaped by the MNPS school board. Until that person is identified and put in place, we are doomed to continue the mistakes of the past and thus putting us at risk of allowing the state TNDOE to exert more control over the district.

The state already controls the establishment of charter schools. Starting this year they will provide provisions for students to enroll in private schools. If the state adds control of the curriculum and how instruction is delivered, what else left for LEA’s to decide?

A REORGANIZATION, RIGHT?

Late last week, rumors began trickling out about a reorganization of the central office. This was both expected and anticipated news. Budget circumstances demanded changes be made and under Dr. Joseph’s tutelage salaries and staffing at central office had ballooned. It was expected that Dr. Battle would correct.

As I heard of the pending changes, I must admit to feeling optimistic that some shortcomings were going to be addressed and some positive movement was coming. I looked forward to the Friday email that was supposed to lay it all out. Unfortunately, that email never came. Instead, a brief sketch of changes was buried in an email about high school graduation that was sure to anger quite a few parents. I’m curious about how many people even read to the bottom to realize a change was afoot.

I’ve always argued that it’s essential for you to tell your story because if you don’t, others will tell it for you and it won’t be the one you want to be told. Such is the case here.

Due to a lack of clarification, rumors have taken root that Karen DeSouza-Gallman will emerge as the new Chief of Schools. No offense and pun intended, but many people would find that very galling considering the lack of impact her office and initiative made last year. Quick, without looking at your notes… what’s the inquiry cycle?

People are looking closely to see where Carl Carter and Michelle Springer end up. Both are known to be confidents of Dr. Battle. Why is Elisa Norris untouched in all of this?

I’m not arguing that Dr. Battle shouldn’t have confidants on her team if qualified, but make sure it is about talent and not just friendship. I think Springer would be qualified for either the job of head of student services or principal at Mcgavock. Carter has proven to be an above-average executive director. Telling the story means making sure people understand a candidate’s qualifications before the narrative becomes cronyism. No one is served well by not fully communicating a move of this magnitude.

Furthermore, burying the lede gives the impression your hiding something. I get no indication that there is more to this reorg than meets the eye, but still if you’ve got nothing to hide, why are you hiding the announcement.

Wrapped up in this reorganization news, was the news that White’s Creek principal Dr. James Bailey would not be retained for next year. While it hasn’t been officially confirmed, the official unofficial word was that Bailey had been at the underperforming high school for over a decade without substantial improvement and thus it was time for a change. Throughout the year I’d heard quite a few stories about a school that was in a state of dysfunction. Without casting stones at anyone, I think it’s pretty clear that it was time for a change.

But what gotten lost in the conversation is the community that is served by White’s Creek High School. Bailey is one of them. He graduated from WCHS. He was a drum major at the school, a position almost akin to being the HS quarterback. As a deacon at a local church, he remains active in the community and is well respected for his efforts. That doesn’t mean that the community is blind to his failings, but it does mean they want to be included in the conversation and be sure that he is treated with respect.

What that means is that more outreach should have been made to the community. They should have been more informed and a plan forward shared. Especially in light of unfounded rumors that swirled earlier in the year about district leaders conspiring with the state to take over the cluster. The same for teachers at the school. more should have been done to communicate to them what was transpiring. Again, instead of writing their narrative, the district is leaving that to others.

The narrative that is taking hold is that Bailey is being ousted in retribution for Battle’s brother being disciplined while serving as the head basketball coach at White’s Creek a couple years ago. There is nothing to indicate any truth to that narrative, but why let it even take root?

What’s especially puzzling about these circumstances the failure to align with the marked improvement the MNPS communications department has made over the last several months. They have consistently been ahead of stories thus ensured that the administration avoided being in reactionary mode. Hopefully, this is just an outlier and clearer communication will be forthcoming.

News of a reorganization is welcome news for most. But, it’s a move that will be watched closely in an effort to determine whether change is really coming or if MNPS is still intent on being the same old MNPS. In order for MNPS to successfully navigate the challenges ahead, leadership is going to need all hands on deck and rowing in the same direction. A simple shuffling of the deck chairs will not serve to engage stakeholders sufficiently.

That’s it for today, but fear not, I’ll be back tomorrow to talk lawsuits.  I’ll also have poll results from the weekend.

If you’ve got something you’d like me to highlight and share, send it on to Norinrad10@yahoo.com. Any wisdom or criticism you’d like to share is always welcome.