Module 3 RSB#2


Writing SMART Objectives and Strategies That Fit the ROUTINE
Lee Ann Jung


http://web.ebscohost.com.cucproxy.cuchicago.edu/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=122&sid=da7e7a22-b0c7-420f-90f6-3b4a361ae3fd%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCxjcGlkJmN1c3RpZD1zODQxOTIzOSZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#db=tfh&AN=24496231


When a professional learning community agrees upon SMART(O'Neill & Conzemius, 2005) goals to narrow their focus they have taken the steps to become more results orientated and ensure that they are meeting the learning needs of all students, as well as aligning district goals to state standards. SMART goals "provide clarity regarding why the work is to be done,"(Dafour, Dafour, Eaker, and Many, 2010) and successful teams will be supplied with the means to achieve and assess their goals.  I was intrigued by the use of SMART goals and decided to research articles that show their implementation in the real teaching world.  I came across an article which used the SMART acronym and used similar terminology, but had different components for some of the words. 


Six-year-old Masie is a special needs student in a rural area.  One of the goals on her IEP involves improving communication skills.  Using her version of SMART goals, Jung enables the resource team and Masie's family to work together to write an effective goal. While the goal is specific, measurable, and attainable it is also "routine-based(R) and tied to a functional priority(T)." (Jung, 2007)  A goal that establishes functional priority uses phrases such as "so that" and "in order to."  Once the goal is established, a plan must be created to delineate the specific things people will do to support the objective. This is her ROUTINE, which stands for:


          Routine-based
          Outcome-related
          Understandable
          Trans-disciplinary
          Implemented by teachers and family
          Non-judgmental
          Evidence-based


In "Writing SMART Objectives and Strategies That Fit the ROUTINE," Lee Ann Jung creates her own SMART acronym and puts the focus on the "micro" rather than the "macro" approach to goal setting. She applies the PLC goal setting to an individual student and takes those goals a step further by creating ROUTINE, an acronym whose elements support her SMART goals. The goals and objectives indicate the routines while the "strategies explain what everyone will do during those routines to support the goals and objectives."(Jung ,2007) Both applications of SMART goals are useful in PLC and individual student use and can be adapted for many educational and professional purposes.  Jung's version can be applied to both exceptional and regular classroom children as well as to a PLC. Her use of ROUTINE strategies seem to be more useful in a resource setting since she concentrates on the interaction and shared mission of the school and home settings.


References:
DaFour, R.,  DaFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. (2010) Learning By Doing, Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press, p.158
Jung, L. A., Writing SMART Objectives and Strategies That Fit the ROUTINE TEACHING Exceptional Children March/April 2007 p. 54-58
Lazarus, A. (2004) Reality check:  Is your behavior aligned with organizational goals? The Physician Executive, 30(5), p. 50-52.
O"Neill, J., & Conzemius, A. (2005) The power of SMART goals:  Using goals to improve student learning.  Bloomington, IN:Solution Tree Press

RSA#1 Module 2

Coherent Instructional Improvements and PLC’s:  Is It Possible to Do Both?

David Jacobson

Phi Delta Kappan, March 2010.  Vol 91 Issue 6.  p36-45

ISSN#00317217J

http://web.ebscohost.com.cucproxy.cuchicago.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=119&sid=e630c198-9bf6-4198-a683-5fad075359b6%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCxjcGlkJmN1c3RpZD1zODQxOTIzOSZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#db=tfh&AN=48453251

While the first module lays the groundwork for establishing professional learning communities, module two argues the need  for a commitment to the learning of each student for the PLC to be successful.  Essential questions such as “What is it we want our students to learn?” and “How will we know when each student has learned it?” are asked(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many 2010).  The case for the use of common formative assessments and essential learning to drive curriculum is made.  In “Sustaining School Improvement:  Professional Learning Community (McREL, 2003) “the dynamic interaction of shared practice and collective inquiry is perhaps the most essential aspect of a professional learning community.”

In the March 2010 issue of Phi Delta Kappan, David Jacobson argues that although both approaches have their merits, they also have their faults.  “The strength of each approach is the other’s weakness,” he writes in “Coherent Instructional Improvement and PLCs: Is It Possible to Do Both?”(p.38).  He explains that the advantage an inquiry-based approach is that the educators develop their own questions and teaching strategies.  While it is easier for the teachers who use this model to have more of a sense of ownership, the downfall is the lack of leadership and direction.  On the other end of the spectrum, the PLC that focuses on grade-level teams, content-area teams, vertical curricular teams, and common formative assessments tends to have “a tighter, more structured, and more top-down feel”(Jacobson p.39).  He asserts that the “results-oriented concept (like the one proposed in Learning by Doing, DaFour et all, 2006) can easily become too assessment driven.” (Jacobson p.40.)

The case is made for a PLC model that takes the best of both approaches, creating a Common Priorities Synthesis.  It gives the inquiry-based approach the direction and leadership it lacks while giving the results-oriented approach the freedom and ownership it lacks.  Jacobson’s model allows the educators to both collaboratively design effective lessons and assessments. It “provides support for inquiry-oriented projects within a structure of vertically aligned essential standards and common assessments,” while honoring “resident expertise and (creating) ample opportunities to build on that expertise by incorporating effective practices and strategies into everyday classroom practice.”(Jacobson p.41)

As a complete newcomer to the concept of a PLC, I feel like a sponge.  As I read Learning By Doing it seems like such a common sense approach to teaching.  What could be simpler than knowing what you want to become, what you want to teach, how you want to teach it, and describing how you’ll know you have succeed or not?  I never thought of what was lacking in the argument until I read Jacobson’s article.  He gives validation to both PLC models in this module’s readings by highlighting their strengths, while pointing out their weaknesses.  He cleverly gives them both praise and criticism as he synthesizes their best attributes while forming his own Common Priorities Instructional Improvement PLC model.  He fills the gap in what is wrong with both the inquiry-based and results-based PLC models.  Personally, I thought Richard DaFour seemed like the PLC guru. After reading Jacobson’s article, his model seems to be the more complete and comprehensive approach to a professional learning community.

References

DuFour, Richard, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, and Thomas

Many. Learning By Doing: A Handbook for Professional

Learning Communities at Work. Bloomington, Ind.: Solution

Tree, 2010

Jaconson, David,Coherent Instructional Improvement and PLCs:  Is It Possible to Do Both?

Phi Delta Kappan,March 2010, Vol 91 Issue 6, p38-45

Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McRel) (2003)

Sustaining School Improvement:Professional Learning Community p1-4