Better Teaching: Only Stuff That Works

Gene Tavernetti: Welcome to Better Teaching, Only Stuff That Works, a podcast for teachers, instructional coaches, administrators, and anyone else who supports teachers in the classroom.

This show is a proud member of the BE Podcast Network shows that help you go beyond education.

Find all our shows@bepodcastnetwork.com.

I Am Gene Tavernetti the host for this podcast.

And my goal for this episode, like all episodes, is that you laugh at least once and that you leave with an actionable idea for better teaching.

A quick reminder, no cliches, no buzzwords.

Only stuff that works My guest today is Dr. Mike Schmoker.

Mike is a former administrator, English teacher, and football coach.

He's written several best selling books and numerous articles for educational journals.

Newspapers and for time magazine, his most recent ASCD bestsellers are the expanded second edition of focus and results now 2.

0, which was also a number one bestseller on Amazon.

The first edition was a finalist for the book of the year by the association of educational publishers.

Mike is the recipient of the Distinguished Service Award by the National Association of Secondary School Principals for his publications and presentations.

In an Education Week survey of national school leaders, he was ranked near the top of the best sources of practical, nuts and bolts advice, wisdom, and insight on effective school improvement.

Mike has consulted and keynoted throughout the U. S., Canada, Australia, China, and Jordan.

He now lives in Tempe, Arizona with his wife, Cheryl.

Cheryl.

All right.

Mike, good to see you.

Thanks for being on Better Teaching, Only Stuff That Works.

Michael Schmoker: Great to be here.

Wheatie.

Good to see you again.

Gene Tavernetti: Thanks.

Thanks.

And we'll let that Wheatie, we'll talk about that out of the bag.

Although I do have to say, I did have a guest on and her name that she goes by was Beanie

Michael Schmoker: Beanie.

Gene Tavernetti: Beanie.

And so I didn't feel too bad with Wheatie.

We talked about that a little bit.

Michael Schmoker: Wheatie.

Wheatie is a perfect moniker

Gene Tavernetti: Isn't it?

Michael Schmoker: for a, you know, a former college quarterback.

Gene Tavernetti: Yeah that, yeah.

That's funny.

And you know when that was, right?

That was, you know, that was a half a century ago.

Michael Schmoker: Yeah, a little while back.

Gene Tavernetti: It was a little while back.

Well, what's interesting is that we found out that we went to the same school.

We were there.

We graduated at the same time.

We had the same major.

But had never met when we were there.

So yeah, that, that is interesting.

So I didn't know you then, but I became aware of you when I started consulting in the early two thousands.

And my first encounter with you was when somebody gave me an article called the Crayola curriculum.

Well, can you talk a little bit about that?

Because at that time, boy, you said Mike Smoker, everybody associated you with the Crayola curriculum.

Michael Schmoker: y. Yeah.

It, it did it, it did work pretty hard for me, that particular piece.

I was working at McCrell.

Some people know that one of these regional labs federally funded.

Regional educational regional labs with Bob Marzano, and he suggested that I go in his place to be so sort of part of a panel of college professors,
ed professors and others to be on hand to congratulate some school for making exceptional for having an exceptional professional development program.

So I went and I'm sitting there with these esteemed professors and others.

And we did a walkthrough in the school.

What went through most of the classrooms and then reconvened and everyone just Was just rhapsodizing about what a fabulous school it was and it must be a
result of all this Great professional development, and I sat there nervously preparing myself to ask the question, What did you all see that was so exceptional?

What I saw was every classroom, almost every classroom, the students were mostly coloring or drawing or cutting.

Mostly coloring, though.

And when I asked that question, Everyone just kind of froze, and then I said, and if I may ask if it's not importune were there, as a result of this great PD that they're getting this award for, were there any gains in their test scores at all?

And there was another silence and someone said, someone from the school actually said, well, no, there have not been any test score gains, but that's the way she put it was something like, but that's awfully hard to do to get to test score gains.

I walked out of there and I thought to myself, surely to goodness.

The reason they haven't seen any measurable gains is because instead of teaching reading and writing during the literacy block, and that's when we were there, these students are mostly coloring and doing some cutting and pasting and things that really contribute nothing to literacy.

And a light went on.

And I wrote that article and it resonated with a lot of people, I guess.

Gene Tavernetti: Well, I don't know where you had, you submitted it.

I think I remember seeing a copy of it in the LA Times.

Michael Schmoker: It was in Education Week.

Gene Tavernetti: okay.

Michael Schmoker: it, well, it was it was in education week.

I did have a piece in the LA Times that had to do with what I thought was excess and kind of the excesses of the self esteem movement was the piece I had published in the LA Times.

Gene Tavernetti: You know, there is so much going on.

I, there's so many things that I want to talk with you about, Mike.

Okay, so, at that time, you saw all this coloring, and then you continued to work.

You continued to work in education.

Has all that changed now?

Michael Schmoker: No if anything, it's just about the same, I would

Gene Tavernetti: Okay.

Michael Schmoker: And I can't say how many people contact me to say.

We see this coloring going on.

In fact, you know, even back then, I sort of thought this, most of the coloring was going on in the early grades, but my friend Carol Yago, former president of the National Council
of Teachers of English, sent me an email and said, and she's from California, you might know Carol, and she sent me this email saying it's going on right up through the senior year.

And sure enough, what in my.

Classroom tours, which I began to do more and more of, I saw this going on everywhere.

And then I would ask educators, where did you learn about this?

A lot of them, a lot of them learned it in their college their ed courses as part of their teacher preparation.

Which still mystifies me.

Gene Tavernetti: Is there any relationship to the Crayola curriculum that you described and how you just talked about it right now?

And a lot of the EdTech that we're seeing.

Have we just gone digital?

Or am I being too harsh there of a comparison?

Michael Schmoker: Well, it's certainly, it certainly is part of that basket of distractions, if you will, that interferes with fairly fundamental educational and literacy practices.

I mean, if you ask an educator point blank, should kids do a lot of reading purposeful reading and should there not be meaningful, even some often extended discussions and should there not be lots of writing.

Lots of writing instruction going on in schools, certainly in English, in abundance, and sure as heck in social studies, and yes, even in science.

Most people will agree, but they've never stopped long enough or been nudged or coaxed into reflecting on the fact that doesn't happen in our schools.

We wonder why we have these abysmal NAEP scores that just came out recently.

We wonder why People, to some extent, educators, have almost given up on the notion that any kind of quote unquote reform will ever make a difference.

This is why.

We simply haven't made the changes we need because, going back to your question, We're still coloring, and if we're not coloring, we've got kids in front of screens way more time than they need to be.

And a lot of that screen work is really just a computerized version of a worksheet.

So you've got screen time, worksheets, coloring, cutting, pasting, and group work.

Let me throw that in.

That, too, a huge distraction that gets in the way of actual, Educational activities that have, that we've known about for millennia?

Gene Tavernetti: So you go to the school that has this great PD and they had a note and they didn't.

So if you were going to advise if you're going to advise principals.

Districts, what would you, what kind of PD would you suggest for them and not only maybe content, but the way that it's presented what advice would you have for them

Michael Schmoker: Sure, yeah.

Yeah.

I the first or second thing I would do, I would, maybe I would begin with effective instruction.

I'd have some curriculum projects going on, sort of back burner, and I'll get to that in a moment.

But the first and perhaps most important instruct in preparation.

or pd you could provide for a teacher whether they're preparing to be teachers or our teachers is you would teach them just the basic structure of a good lesson which means there are certain steps you take
to make sure all the students are attentive then you make sure you have a clear learning target or objective and you'd have teachers this is how you do this kind of pd you'd have teachers actually Right.

Some objectives and pair up in their PD sessions to look at each other's learning targets and objectives to make sure that they're solid and effective ones.

And then you'd make sure that they know this basic cycle of teaching in a fairly small or manageable chunk or slice of instruction, followed by guided practice with the students.

Give it a try, during which time, and this is huge, you are wandering around.

You're going up and down the aisles, if you will, and you're looking at student work to see did they get that last step or chunk in the lesson.

If they didn't, and they usually don't fully get.

The steps in a lesson, you have to do some reteaching.

You have to get back to the front of the room and say, let me take a, let me clarify that or adjust my instruction a little bit or let you work in pairs to help each other to complete that step successfully.

And when they've all or almost all the students have successfully completed a step, then and only then do you move on to the next one.

Now I would just interrupt myself to say that kind of instruction.

It isn't, doesn't occupy 100 percent of the curriculum, but it should occupy a large portion.

The rest of that time, of course, is going to be independent work for which students have acquired the capacities and the prerequisites to complete tasks, including reading and writing tasks, on their own.

But that might be the first step I'd take.

I could go on and talk at some point about teaching teachers how to conduct effective literacy lessons.

That's something I like to talk about and train audiences in as well these days.

Gene Tavernetti: or could I interrupt you here?

Because you said.

Instruction you'd start with, which I absolutely agree because I think that it's one of those big variables that it's, I think it's very difficult for teachers to understand
how to develop curriculum, how long it's going to take to develop knowledge in certain area, how long it's going to practice, because they always seem to, take to develop.

To think that it's going to take longer than it actually

Because the instruction isn't as effective as it could be.

So I think it's just a, it's just a big variable.

It is curriculum, agnostic, you know, it doesn't matter what you're doing.

Let's start here and then let's take a look at the other things.

So you said instruction, you said literacy.

And I know in your work, in your books, you talk about kind of a three, three legged stool.

You don't say that and I'm not supposed to use cliches on this.

on this podcast, but I just used

Michael Schmoker: That's a good metaphor.

You bet.

Sure.

Gene Tavernetti: so what are the three areas you've mentioned effective instruction and what are the two areas that you always develop in your books that are mandatory to get results?

Michael Schmoker: And I think the research demonstrates that these three cannot be beaten, nothing can beat these three elements.

I described the one, the other one is curriculum, as you mentioned, and we need to make sure that teachers are given the opportunity and guidance on how to create their own curriculum and to do it in a way that can be done in just a few hours.

I mean, you can create the, you can rough out a workable.

Curriculum that can be used immediately and then refined over the course of say PLC over the course of the next few weeks.

It's a PLC team meetings.

That's got to happen as soon as possible.

Hopefully, you know, ideally say before the beginning of the school year.

And this can be done, and yet it is so seldom actually done in schools.

My, my wife worked at a school that made huge one and two year gains.

The minute they sat down, looked at the state standards in math, this is high school math in Arizona.

They reviewed those standards, selected what they as a team for each course thought were the most.

important essential standards, put them on a schedule, a nine month schedule, and then just begin to work in teams to add page numbers from their textbook, to accompany the standards, and to
follow, and for the first time, You know have a common body of topics and standards and to actually teach it according to the schedule They had agreed on that made all the difference in the world.

You can do this for any subject My books happen to lay that stuff out.

I think in pretty clear detail any group of teachers can develop a decent or quite a bit better than decent curriculum in a matter of hours going through some of these pretty basic steps.

But again, In most schools I know of, they've never even been given that charge.

So, you know, not to digress but, so we end up grasping for some commercial product or curriculum that is really off base in multiple ways and ends up in a lot of cases doing more harm than good.

The third piece, of course, is

Gene Tavernetti: Before you go on to the third piece, Mike I want to, I, I want to tell you I want to bring up two things with respect to developing this.

that you talked about and the first one is you said, oh, you could do this in a few hours.

And the reality is I've seen that done.

We had a, one of our consultants, one of the things we would do when we worked with schools is do exactly what you just said.

And I saw her work with language arts department and would do.

several grade levels in a day developing this curriculum.

And if they,

Michael Schmoker: Well, you know, it,

Gene Tavernetti: Oh, and then I, well, the other thing is, then I went back to your book because I don't know about you, but I've got a lot of books on my bookshelf that I've only partially read or I've forgotten about.

And then when I went and reread that part of your book, I realized that's exactly what she did.

She did it in exactly the manner you talked about.

So what I'm saying is this is not just some guy saying, Oh, you know, in theory you could do this.

No, she led them through it.

But I will say she was skilled.

She had done this many times and was able to lead them through it and able to control a lot of the things that might've gotten in the way to get it done effectively.

The other thing that I see, People comment on is, you know, you talked about the standards and okay, what are the essential standards?

And then, so what they do is they blast the standards really criticize the standards say, well, there's just too many of them.

If you have to make those decisions, then why are the standards there?

Can you talk a little bit about maybe criteria for.

Selecting standards or any suggestions that you might have for folks.

Michael Schmoker: I don't know that I would establish, I've never done that and I've seen other people that do and I'm not as certain of those criteria as some might be.

The only thing I can say is that when I put groups of teachers together and I give them a very limited amount of time.

like even 15 minutes to take a pencil and put a little mark next to only their favorite half of the topics or standards

Gene Tavernetti: huh.

Michael Schmoker: in a standards document.

Gene Tavernetti: Right.

Right.

Michael Schmoker: It's amazing how in that 15 minutes, there's enormous overlap amongst the teacher team.

And then you're able to say, look at all you have in common, just your own experience and common sense.

Point right at certain ones and away from others.

And the nice thing is you can, you just identified only half.

Now add another 10 or 20 percent and then everybody's happy.

They lay them out on what they think is a, you know, a reasonable timetable.

And again, this can be done in maybe half an hour.

Knowing it's going to get refined over the course of the school year, and it would be very hard for, say, three intelligent people, three teachers, combining
their intelligence to select what they think are the most important standards, putting them on a schedule, and this is the kicker, actually teaching them.

When you combine those three things, imperfections notwithstanding, there's no such thing as a perfect curriculum.

When you combine those three factors the thoughtful selection followed by laying it out on a schedule that allows With some deliberation allows for sufficient time for
each standard to be taught and then you actually teach it You just entered probably the upper 2 percent of schools in terms of the power of your curriculum It's good.

It's almost Guaranteed to have a measurable impact in the first year

Gene Tavernetti: You know, I think you said one of the most important things in doing this work.

And that is, you know, okay, guys, you've got 10 minutes.

Let's pick out these because many times and this is not a derogatory.

I'm not trying to make any judgment, but just like students, if you give students 10 minutes to do something, the first five minutes are not that productive, but they're going to get on it on the, you know, it's that time limit that, that makes you make those decisions.

And I think the other thing is implied in that, you know, you don't have to be perfect.

Let's make some decisions and move forward.

And then we can.

Then we can look at this.

We could look at this again later, but I'm just gonna one more time.

I'm gonna say that works the way you describe it in your book.

Works if you work it.

Michael Schmoker: and I just want to, I just want to say amen to the two things you just identified that the time limit really does make a difference in a lot of things.

I emphasize that I think in the last two or three books that I've written where I, and whenever I do trainings, I say, look, if you give kids five minutes, as you said to do something, they will do it during the last minute.

And I like to say, how long do you think it would really take to do this or that activity?

And it's amazing how teachers collectively wind up saying, identifying about the same number of seconds or minutes.

I give people, I give students 40 seconds to complete most steps in a lesson.

that ensures that you're going to get through the lesson in a timely fashion.

It creates a nice stimulating pace and it kills downtime and creates purpose.

What could be better than that?

Very few teachers employ time limits in their lessons.

And the same thing goes for curriculum, as you just pointed out.

I tell people this all the time.

If you don't have a time limit, people will look at this as something that has to take a full year of meetings.

And at the end of that year, they often have nothing to show for it.

Gene Tavernetti: Yeah.

I happen to tell teachers about, you know, how much time a student needs for something.

And I said, give him that amount of time because at the end of that time, if they're not done, they don't need more time.

They need more instruction.

we've got instruction, we've got developing curriculum and what's the third area that you emphasize?

Michael Schmoker: Well, the third one is literacy, and in a way it's really a part of curriculum, if you think about it.

Curriculum should be really infused with large amounts of reading, writing, and discussion.

More so in some courses than others, but every course needs to include Adequate amounts, if not generous amounts, of those three activities.

We don't do enough of those three activities in schools.

If you look, if, again, going back to the Crayola curriculum, if you will, if you walk through classrooms during the, you know, so called literacy block, that's two full hours.

It's a little exercise.

There's a huge opportunity.

Huge opportunity to get kids, all kids off to a great start in school just by recasting that two hour literacy block.

It's a little exercise I like to go through with audiences lately.

I say, okay, you got two hours.

First, let's say K one, or maybe even K two.

If you teach those kids in groups, you've gotta figure two hours is 120 minutes, at least 20 minutes.

Gets gobbled up with transitions getting, you know, one group off the stage with the teacher and the other group joining them while the other students are learning at centers or
stations that day and 120 with about 100 minutes left after you take 20 minutes away for transitions, four groups gives those kids about 25 minutes of instruction in the early grades.

Almost all of that has to go to phonics.

Or decoding.

You've got almost nothing left for reading out loud to students, having them read along with you.

You've got almost nothing left for discussion and writing.

Those are really the core of literacy.

The minute you go to mostly whole group, You at least double and probably triple the amount of time available not only for phonics now, but for reading, writing, and discussion, which are the real engines of literacy in that block, in that literacy block.

We've got to get past this notion that we have to teach.

K 1, maybe K 2 literacy in these small group structures.

Tim Shanahan's, I trust him as much as anyone in the literacy research world he has come out rather strong on this of late.

So there's that, and I, just let me say because I'm waxing on here, we just need to have way more of this going on in all other grade levels, especially English and social studies, but also beyond.

And that is.

Teaching kids to carefully analyze text, to talk about it in, you know, for a meaningful amount of time, and then write about what they have read and discussed.

That ought to occupy a huge portion of the curriculum, and now it does not.

Gene Tavernetti: So, what do you think prevents schools from making these seem like simple, but they're, simple doesn't mean easy, but they are certainly doable things.

What prevents schools from making these changes and doing the things that you just described?

Michael Schmoker: Well, well, sometimes I think it is it's inertia, and it's the fact that none of them are emphasized.

So I want to start right at the top when I say inertia.

I just mean people tend to do.

what they've always done, what the organization has always done.

You might be familiar with Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, a book that made an enormous splash considering it's a pure idea book.

The core of that book basically says people, when people Have been doing something a long time or they gather that everybody always does this thing and have always done it this way.

They don't ever examine what they are doing against, say, research or facts.

And so we just keep on doing what we've doing.

We've been doing without asking what would be more effective, let's just take small groups.

We've known for years, education week has made the abundant number of studies have come out in education week reporting on the fact that centers where kids occupy huge amounts
of time have virtually no positive impact on student literacy and that small groups are not near as effective as mostly large group structures as I described a moment ago.

Now, where would we expect Those research based practices to get emphasized, taught, and acquired in undergraduate preparation, and they are not.

You will seldom, if ever, talk to a recent graduate or a long time former graduate of a university teacher preparation program where professors I'm trying to find the right words, just stress like crazy the importance
that kids read for a full, at least a full hour every school day, that they actually write for a good 40 45 minutes, if not, according to Steve Graham, maybe an hour a day as part of learning in any subject.

You'll never hear that, and you'll, and I know this from my own experience, right up through the doctorate.

You'll never hear, you'll never hear that.

A professor saying you must provide serious, systematic writing instruction so that kids know how, and leave school knowing how to write, you know, clear, cogent prose.

If it doesn't get emphasized there, it's not going to get emphasized in PD, and we have schools full of people who've never heard anyone say, these are the really important things.

Instead, we just devolve into worksheets, screens, et cetera.

Gene Tavernetti: Okay, Mike, so I've been following your work for a couple decades.

What's changed?

This message that you just said, that you just relayed to us, I've read it in your books.

What's changed over the years for you?

Michael Schmoker: Well, I would say group work has expanded absurdly to where teachers seem to think, educators, you know, seem to buy into the idea that the more group work, the
merrier when in fact, as multiple researchers point this out, too much group work, including Bob Marzano says it's a very risky, very dangerous form of teaching unless you use it.

Surgically, occasionally, only for certain purposes.

Pair share is a much more Students should talk and work and learn from each other in pairs.

Almost every day, most lessons.

Group work is a very different animal.

I've seen it grow like topsy.

And to the point where I've read one study that said as much as 70 percent of the school day students are working in groups and it's simply not an optimal way to teach kids.

Screens, of course, have taken off like a rocket.

All these different apps and Screen based programs have taken off.

I think of a guy named Michael Sonbert, who wrote a compelling piece for education where he says, So what's the biggest trend in education?

You ask me what I've seen change.

He said the biggest trend over the last 20 years is teachers do less Teaching than they've ever done before.

And a lot of it goes back to things I've mentioned, and it's driven by differentiated instruction.

And a completely unproven way of teaching, with virtually zero evidence that it's effective, that completely disrupts and and prevents The possibility of effective whole class teaching, as I've described it, and as I believe you advocate in your own work.

Gene Tavernetti: You couldn't see me because I had to dim my screen, let everybody know, but I was smiling big, almost laughing as you were talking about the changes that we've seen, because You always hear, well, we need to teach differently.

The kids are so different.

The kids are so different.

We have to teach differently.

And there are a few details about things that are happening in the classroom, but for the most part, everything you just said was true 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

And one of the things that I think is interesting, I think get your like to get your comments on it.

One of the things that when one of our conversations way back, I asked you, you know, who are you reading?

You know, who should I read?

And you said start with Tom Bennett.

Tom Bennett is is from the UK.

And so I read some of his stuff and then I started following some of the people he follows.

And so I just went down the UK rabbit hole.

And so listening to those folks, and then listening to, you know, some folks I agree with in the U.

S., they say, you know what, the U. K. is so far ahead of us in what they're doing.

And you know what they're doing?

The stuff you just described,

Michael Schmoker: Oh, no

Gene Tavernetti: you know, you know, and so I don't and I just, you know, maybe it's because, you know, I've been around for a little while and I've seen this stuff, but I hate when people say, well, the pendulum is swinging.

I just think it's lack of institutional memory.

You know, you get a new principal in or a new superintendent.

It doesn't matter what they had done before.

You know, it obviously wasn't working.

So we're throwing everything out and these poor teachers are whiplashed.

Michael Schmoker: Yeah.

Yeah.

There's, they sell them here.

You know, they're whiplashed instead of being told at a presentation, folks, we've combed through the research and we know this, these are the fundamental things that have the largest and most immediate impact on your effectiveness and your students learning.

Here they are, here's the research.

It's undeniable, indisputable.

And if you do these things, you're going to, you're going to be the most effective.

Educator you've ever been.

Your kids are going to not only learn more, they're going to enjoy learning and find it more engaging and we're going to train you how to do it.

And most of that training from the get go will provide you with strategies that can be used that very next morning.

If you choose to use them.

Every teacher in America needs to hear that.

And it's just it hasn't happened yet.

Gene Tavernetti: Excuse me.

I think that teachers have heard for so long.

This is research based.

You know, you get a new textbook series and the people who work for the text for the publishers are experts in promoting their, you know, selling that boy.

If you just do this, the everything's going to be okay.

So I think that there's a you know, it's like the boy who cried wolf.

You know, this is research based.

This is gonna work.

And I think the, you know, I say veteran teachers, I'm thinking, you know, you've been there a decade.

You've heard this stuff, you know, and I don't know how that message is received or gets through more powerfully the message that you just said.

Like, like, there's a lot of research that supports this.

I don't know.

One of the things that I.

Michael Schmoker: well received if I could jump in.

It's almost always well received by a majority.

But it's all about follow up or all about repetition.

You know, there's a number of organizational theorists who all say the same thing.

You can't tell someone about an effective practice, and even if they buy it you can't expect them to go forth and implement that practice unless it gets repeated, unless the organization itself celebrates small accomplishments and gains made as a result of that practice or strategy.

You have to fill the air with repetition, clarification, and even adjustment, when necessary, and celebration of small victories, wins, gains, so that people absorb the fact that, hey, it's really true that if every lesson I teach I
conduct checks for understanding in between each step so that I can clarify or adjust in order to bring more students on with each step, unless they hear that a lot and see their own success and hear about their colleagues success.

It will simply die on the vine.

Gene Tavernetti: My listeners can't see how big I'm smiling as you're saying that because it is that follow up and they, I really don't think they believe you when you say the research says until they see it actually

Michael Schmoker: Right.

Gene Tavernetti: have the coaching, they can see it in the kids faces and they go, wow, these, this really does make a difference.

But before they try it.

I just think it's empty rhetoric but that's why that follow up is so critical.

We can't just, you know, the analogy I always use is that if all we needed to tell people was the research, everybody would be eating well because everybody knows the proper foods to eat and everybody be at the gym every day exercising, but they need that step.

They need to actually do something to experience it.

Michael Schmoker: Do, and I have to say that changing our teaching strategies or adopting the most research based practices is quite a bit easier than having to go to the gym several times a week or eat a better diet.

All we'd have to do is go through a period of time where we introduce New strategies show people that it's is it's that they're enormously doable.

Get a few people to succeed at it.

Demonstrate.

I want to be emphatic here.

Demonstrate that it does not require a norm.

It doesn't require additional time on your part during your work week does not have to expand.

You can do these things in the same amount of time you now have If not less and be vastly more effective, we haven't even gotten to the point where we just say, Look, let's just take these things one at a time.

Lesson structure.

Here's how you do it.

We're going to practice with you until you know the ropes go implement.

We're going to walk through the school and monitor report back on the whole school and say some of you are doing it.

Some of you aren't.

Let's clarify a little bit here.

These processes are not that painful, but they do require at least A little bit of initiative, and if you'll allow me, a more logical organizational mindset.

Schools do not operate on logic or evidence right now.

They don't.

PD itself virtually operates in contention with logic and evidence.

If that changed, a lot of great things would happen for teachers and students.

Gene Tavernetti: you know, you know what, Mike, I can't believe that is such a good thing to leave folks with, except I do want to say that I think everything we talked about today that they should pick up a copy of your book results now 2.

0 because it just expands on a lot of the ideas that you talked about with a lot of more details about how to actually implement the things, which again, I'm going to provide testimony, actually take testimony.

That limited amount of time that you say they do.

It's actually doable.

These things are doable.

Michael Schmoker: Well, thanks for that concurrence.

You bet.

And I hope maybe some of your listeners will take some of this stuff to heart.

It's, none of it's original with me, that's for sure.

But these things work and they work fast and they work big.

It's time.

Gene Tavernetti: Mike, they may not be original with you, but the important thing that the readers know and the listeners know, you didn't just make this up.

You've been in schools doing this, and you see it work.

And I think that is, is the difference between what some folks talk about is it's been done.

You have a question for me, Mike?

Michael Schmoker: I really don't, but as I asked you informally before we got on air, you know, I like to think that you could still throw a tight spiral.

Gene Tavernetti: Well, let me tell you, Mike.

Let me tell you, I was at a I was doing coaching, working with a middle school, and one of the teachers, I was working with new teachers, and one of the,
one of the new teachers was a P. E. teacher, so I went out there, and they were playing football, and I told some kid, throw me the ball, throw me the ball.

So I, so he's I, cause I wanted to see if I could throw a spiral and that the first thing I had to tell that kid is get closer.

And after I, you know, the first one, Oh man, you know, and I'm doing a little, trying to warm up my shoulder and then the second one, and then I threw five and my shoulder was done so I could do it, but not for long.

But so,

Michael Schmoker: that's good enough for me.

I'm impressed.

Gene Tavernetti: all right, Mike, it has been an absolute pleasure chatting with you

Michael Schmoker: Mine too.

Gene Tavernetti: and I hope to run into you in the near future.

Michael Schmoker: I hope so and I'm sure we will.

Weedy.

Take care.

Gene Tavernetti: right.

If you're enjoying these podcasts, tell a friend.

Also, please leave a 5 star rating on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

You can follow me on BlueSky at gTavernetti, on Twitter, x at gTavernetti, and you can learn more about me and the work I do at my website, BlueSky.

Tesscg.

com, that's T E S S C G dot com, where you will also find information about ordering my books, Teach Fast, Focus Adaptable Structure Teaching, and Maximizing the Impact of Coaching Cycles.

Talk to you soon