There are many nuts-and-bolts topics discussed (which is probably why you are here) in the name of counterfactual thinking and black swans. All interesting, but you may by here for only one, so scroll down to what interest you. In order, the topics are: Introduction, Configuration, Schedule, Placement, Last Thoughts. Enjoy.
Counterfactual Reasoning and Black Swan Planning
A few weeks ago I wrote about counterfactual reasoning–that it is easier to prove something doesn’t work than it is that is does work. For example, it is hard to prove that coming to school leads to learning, but we know truants fall behind. This is important to remember as we plan–we can’t confirm much about the future, but we can plan with that blind spot in mind.
The idea becomes important when looking at the surprises we seem to encounter after we do a lot of planning for the next year (placement, schedule, resource allocation, etc.). The theory of this is the “black swan“; that unexpected events have a major effect on plans. Because of this, the theory goes, we should plan with the unexpected in mind. The other half of the theory is that it is difficult to know what to plan for. In short, just be ready for something.
Note: Much of this is inspired by Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Much of this essay looks at the unexpected events that cause those disruptions every educator can relate to–nothing Earth shattering, but annoying nevertheless.
As educators, we tend to lock everything down–protocols, lessons, spaces, schedules, class lists–because we like to think we can predict everything. For example, our school locked students into the three homerooms last June, but we did not take into account several unexpected developments.
The largest was we had asked students their World Language preference (French or Spanish). Our students move through the school by classroom–Art, PE, Music and World Language. During the summer we realized we could not honor most preferences because placement was based on a different criteria. We punted. But we also did not expect several students from one classroom to move away or that so many new families would move into our district. We placed with insufficient information. Then student preferences for WL created more turmoil, as parents demanded their kid get this or that language (they, of course, waiting for three weeks into September before doing so). It also took a few weeks to figure out the WL/Tier II needs of new and leaving students. Who knew?
As the old Yiddish proverb goes, “Man plans and God laughs.”
One of the mistakes people make is in trying to anticipate the black swan. If we only anticipate more contingencies we think we can control it all. No. We certainly can straighten out many issues. And we still have to make plans–schedules, room assignments, placement, etc. How, though, can we plan while respecting the unknown?
Here are some examples of common issues facing schools.
A few weeks ago I shared a configuration idea for our middle school. For forever they have been multi-age, but they are contemplating going straight-grade “just for next year” because class sizes are getting too large and students are falling through the cracks. There are several challenges facing the team, but the main one will be the influx or exodus of students. I argue maintaining multi-age classrooms is the best safeguard against student numbers changing.
They are adding a fifth teacher to a four person team. The Core is responsible for Language Arts, Math, Science and Social Science. Currently, two teachers are licensed to teach STEM and two Humanities. To alleviate class sizes they plan to hire a Science teacher. In theory, this lowers the class average from 28 students to 23. Of course, because the new teacher can only teach Science it does nothing to help the Humanities classes . In theory, one of the STEM teachers will shift some of her load towards Math, but Math being taught straight-grade and other elements conspire against such neat divisions.
Using the our middle school’s straight-grade plan as an example, three teachers for the 7th and two for the 8th creates an automatic imbalance. Of course, these can be mitigated (supports, aides, schedule). But, should five students leave the 7th, or five join the 8th (or both), there is suddenly a difficult situation with no easy fix. We can’t know if that scenario will play out, or be worse. The plan, though, is crafted with little wiggle room should any black swan appear.
Using counterfactual thinking, instead create a multi-age made up of two teams. Each team has a Science and Humanities teacher. A single Math teacher instructs all students–a big load, but she is relieved of other duties and the two teams can focus on social-emotional middle school programming.
Imagine, now, five students leave the seventh–the release would be divided between two teams, offering a slight relief of two or three on each team. In the case of the five joining the 8th, a much more devastating event, that burden would be shared and only result in two or three each. In fact, if both scenarios play out, much of the effect is a wash. Multi-age benefits can mitigate the other effects of population bubbles. For example, each year teachers move (with their classrooms) and they need to relearn new curriculum and start new team protocols, etc. Multi-age allows multi-dimensional flex.
But the question to ask is why that plan will not work? I have shown the problems of straight grade (there are more, unwritten here), but that does not mean multi-age is better. The black swan, counterfactual advice is to take each option and poke at it–with some of the more outlandish variables–until it reveals its flaws. Then, put down other ideas, too, and poke them. One area to look at is which “losses” are most tolerable and which would be devastating. The plan with the most resiliency is probably your best bet.
The difficulties of crafting a schedule are long and well known (we even know that we don’t know enough). This is especially true in schools with many grades and diverse needs (we are a pre-K through 8).
I actually learned a lot recently on why crafting a schedule is so hard through an article on chaos theory (an article for later). In short, such endeavors are dynamic and resetting course causes exponential problems down the path. What we do know is that schedule craft works up to 80% of the elements are placed, but then conflicts trouble the last 20% of needs (that’s the dynamic nature of the process). To fix it we begin to make compromises (which creates more conflict, exponentially). Each year, someone (or many) is (are) unhappy.
Then, each year, we have a black swan surprise. Last year, it was WL and everything that followed it. Other grades had other emergencies. Each fix seemed to bring more problems. We live with it–we have no choice–but that 20% consumed a lot of resources and continues to create ripples (e.g., it is unclear if student preference for WL will be honored in 7th grade now that they have a year of one language under their belt.).
My solution is blocking out time instead of scheduling in time. For example, one grade level figures four uninterrupted hours of seven school hours are needed for Core–90 minutes of Literacy, 60 minutes for Math, 60 for Science/Social Science and 30 for TA. We demonstrate what’s important to an organization by the resources we put towards it (time, money) and four hours uninterrupted seems a reasonable commitment. That leaves three hours for lunch, recess, Unified Arts (UA), band, mentor, counseling and any other non-Core activity.
How is a block resilient? Let’s look at how our current system is not. Predicting a seven hour day is hard; there are many variables. It is also easy to be fooled by small numbers–three kids pulled out here, four there. Currently, music lessons, mentor, speech and physical therapy, and other student needs are pulled from Core. There are many reasons for this–part time employees and mentors have locked-in schedules, no one wants to deny a child their one Art class a week, and a few kids here or there are seen as non-disruptive. But in my class of 20, one absence and three music lessons are 20% of the class. Plus, recovery now becomes a negotiation not with two other Core teachers, but with three times that–pull from Art? PE? (And, because of the dynamics of the interwoven schedule, also lose 20% of their students and need recovery for them). Again, here is the problem I am poking a hole in with our current schedule and how it was created.
By dividing the day into two blocks (4 hour, 3 hour) that do not overlap, students and teachers only have to negotiate within those blocks, with only those adults. It is more likely I can flex with my Core teammate’s schedule because a) we have an aligned schedule, b) fewer pulls (classes) means fewer and smaller disruptions, c) fewer agents means less communication needed. On Core, we can debate the virtues of Math vs. Science and time required to do it right, but with blocks we do not have to debate the death by a thousand cuts we currently face. Four hours uninterrupted shows we value Literacy, Math, Science and Hive. Three hours should be enough for others to negotiate what is best for students, among actors who have more in common (UA). Or, to demonstrate that we want more for our students than the resources we have (or are willing) to give. Again, this may be flawed. Poke it.
Has there not been an issue with placement? Do kids every come as advertised, stay friends (or enemies) with the kids from the previous year, or continue to need the same services? Too often, we’ve even had to change the teacher assigned to the class (illness, pregnancy, number shifts). For all the benefits we argue placement provides, those are the holes I poke in our locking kids in as we do.
Three years ago, the middle school wisely created two teams with a blank slate for placement. First, Special Ed (SE) placed students on the two teams with a variety of rationales–service providers, friend/tormentor locations and the like. This was open to debate/poking by the group, but we deferred to the experts. Second, a small number of kids who do not receive services were separated or paired because of behavior or emotional needs. Some kids need friendly peers, while others are a bit too friendly during class time. All told, about 20% of placement was locked in like this. That is an example of necessary planning with what is known (at that time). What’s important to note is what they did not do–lock in the remaining 80%.
Then, the sending teachers made two “balanced” teams. More poking. But the most important part was that no one was locked in until mid-September. Each week the middle school would observe interactions, listen to students and families, and shift kids around. Then, they locked in all kids, creating permanent teams and focused on creating identities for those teams and bonds within.
They waited because kids change–they move, they mature and their allegiances shift. Because services did not have much flexibility (the nature of Spec Ed and part-timers), and some kids need reassurances (i.e., not being placed with a bully or knowing an adult face before the first day of school), those 20% never shifted. But, as things shook out, a flexibility was built in for the other 80% so that movement was possible. By the third week, the two teams were as solid as one is going to get. It was a successful year.
Compare that flexibility with what happened when we locked in the grade last year that suffered at the hands of WL. For what was gained (a faint sense of knowing their homeroom) much was lost. While we should be aware of the anxiety we create with some unknowns, it can be fleeting compared to the year-long stress of a bad fit created by the black swan. Again, the above might not survive a good poke, but our current spring lock-in is troublesome in the long term.
A Note About Counterfactual Poking
It is easy to spot flaws. The question is a) if that flaw is true in any viable model, b) if that flaw has a major effect.
For example, one argument I have heard against postponing placement until a few weeks into the year is anxiety and parental concern. Yet, when we locked in the placement of kids, one or two parents would inevitably call with concerns (or be more forceful about it). Sometimes, that brought a dam break of other requests as parents micromanaged. In short, parents and kids worry regardless. The former is easily dealt with because the concerning elements are often soothed with more information, and solutions can be shared (including locking in needs). The latter upends a carefully planned order, with results (according to chaos theory) that can prove exponential.
So, caution is necessary when weighing options. People need to be objective that all plans have downsides–sometimes the same downsides–but some recover better.
The idea is that the we don’t know what we don’t know, but we still have to plan. We want to poke holes in things early, and be honest about defects, before we choose the model that is best for students.