RSA 2: Will the Real SMART Goals Please Stand Up?

RSA 2: Will the Real SMART Goals Please Stand Up?

Will the Real SMART Goals Please Stand Up?        

            In chapter six of Learning by Doing, the authors discuss how to create results orientation in a professional learning community (PLC).  The chapter begins describing a school that prides themselves in having a strong strategic plan for the district and throughout each individual school within the district.  What was discovered was that as the grand plan sounded strong and worthwhile, “it was neither impacting practice in the classroom nor contributing to a culture of continuous improvement” (DuFour et al, 2010, p 156).  In fact, teachers even had difficulty in recalling the goals within the plan.  By creating a results orientation, teachers would be engaged and create goals that would directly result in raising student learning.  SMART goals were then introduced to help achieve such goals and improved learning.  The SMART acronym stands for:

·         Strategic

·         Measureable

·         Attainable

·         Results oriented

·         Time bound (specifying when the goal will be achieved) (p 158)

The SMART goals must be developed to link school goals to district goals.  Furthermore, teams within the schools need to create SMART goals to be able to be effective as well.  The text also discusses the need for attainable objectives focused on results not activities.  

            Chapter seven discusses the true meaning of results orientation.  In the case study presented in this chapter, the PLC was concerned about using common assessments as a means to discover strengths and weaknesses in their teaching.  However, the authors point out that collaborative efforts, however well-defined and meaningful, do not necessarily lead to improved learning.  In fact, “the very reason to engage in the PLC process is to improve results; therefore, it is incongruous to argue that the process should be inattentive to results” (p 182).  The chapter offers various protocols to achieve effective results orientation collaborative work.   Bruce Wellman and Laura Lipton (2004) created the protocol titled “Here’s What, So What, Now What.”  This program “focuses the team’s attention on a specific fact, data point, or idea (Here’s What), supports and builds capacity to surface and organize prior knowledge, interpretations and perspective (So What), and generates implications for changes in a teacher’s practice (Now What)” (DuFour et al, 2010, p 99).  Descriptive Review is another protocol used at Stevenson High School that utilizes six-steps; “introduction, teacher presentation, clarifying questions, feedback, reflection, and debrief” (p 189). 

            Chapter ten finishes our reading for the week with addressing the challenges of creating PLCs.  The key to effective PLC and leadership within PLCs is the realization that the process or protocol will need to be ever-changing as the needs change and challenges arise.  The authors also acknowledge the difficulty of developing a PLC and the fear of change in general.  Shared decision making and collaboration is necessary for all involved to feel empowered, but the success of a PLC lies strongly upon the effectiveness of its leader.  The authors wrap-up the chapter by offering various tips for strong leadership.  Some of their tips include, “link the change initiative to current practices and assumptions when possible, align actions with words, and disperse leadership” (p 254 – 257).

            Robert S. Rubin at Saint Louis University wrote an interesting article in “The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist” Journal titled, “Will the Real SMART Goals Please Stand Up?” (Rubin, 2002).  In this article, Rubin addresses the “real” meaning behind the acronym SMART.  He has always thought of the acronym for SMART matching exactly what DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many write in Learning by Doing:

·         Strategic

·         Measurable

·         Attainable

·         Results oriented

·         Time bound (DuFour et al, 2010, p 158)

Rubin performed research on what SMART goals represented after coming across a different word for the ‘T.’  Instead of “time-bound” as he had always thought it to be, he found it to represent “trackable.” That led him to further investigate the terms behind the acronym SMART.  Most of the research he performed represented SMART as was defined earlier.  However, he found the following additional terms:

·         S          simple, specific with a stretch, sensible, significant

·         M         meaningful, motivating

·         A         acceptable, achievable, action-motivated, accountable, as-if-now, agreed, agreed-  upon, actionable, assignable

·         R         realistic, reviewable, relative, rewarding, reasonable, results-oriented, relevant to    a mission

·         T          timelines, time-frame, time-stamped, tangible, timely, time-based, time-specific,     time-sensitive, timed, time-scaled, time-constrained, time-phased, time-limited,      time-driven, time-related, time-line, timed, and toward what you want, truthful   (Rubin, 2002)

            Rubin fears that some goals may not be more than “do your best” type goals, which are not effective.  He concludes, however, that many people realize that strong goal writing include some derivation of the SMART model. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many conclude much the same, “research shows that setting SMART goals is essential to achieving results” (DuFour et al, 2010, p 172).

 

References:

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: a handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Rubin, R. S. (2002). Will the Real SMART Goals Please Stand Up?. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(4), 26-27.

Wellman, B., & Lipton, L. (2004).  Data-driven dialogue:  A facilitator’s guide to collaborative inquiry.  Sherman, CT: Mira Via.