Professional Learning’s “APGAR”

According to a chapter in The Big Moo, a recent book edited by Seth Godin, as post-World War II America shifted from home to hospital births, physician Virginia Apgar “. . . created a simple yet accurate assessment tool for evaluating a baby’s health during the crucial minutes after birth when diagnosis and intervention could help save its life.” The “Newborn Rating System,” the book said, became an international standard for evaluating a baby at birth. Another physician adapted a five-criteria scoring system using the APGAR acronym (appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, respiratory) to make the criteria easier for physicians to remember and use. “The APGAR score has made a worldwide impact on saving babies lives,” the author noted. “It costs nothing, is simple to teach, and requires no complex technology.”

I liked the simplicity and clarity of that approach and found myself wondering whether the volumes of information available today regarding high-quality professional development sometimes overwhelm and confuse educators rather than clarify its essence, point to that which is essential, and promote the most highly leveraged action. Instead of enabling sustained, disciplined efforts focused on a small number of critically important factors, I suspect that information overload sometimes leads to either decision-making paralysis (particularly for those who are uncomfortable acting without feeling like they know everything) or frequent, abrupt changes in direction.

At about the same time I was learning about APGAR I saw an ad in Fast Company for a health-care system that read in part: “Dr. Thomas Gest and his colleagues eliminated traditional lectures in favor of hands-on lab work in our Gross Anatomy Department. This active learning sets us apart and gives our medical students the knowledge and experience they need to become the best doctors. It’s another example of what can be accomplished through collaboration. For our triumphs are not in research alone, nor in the hands of a single doctor, but rather in the rewards realized from working together.” I appreciated the clarity and simplicity of that description of the learning method in this particular medical school—hands-on, active, collaborative.

“APGAR” and the ad’s simplicity stimulated my thinking about the value of a similar acronym that would be easy for school leaders and staff development providers to remember and consistently use in their day-to-day decision making. The starting point, of course, is to identify a small number of critically important factors that are within the circle of influence of principals, teacher leaders, and district administrators.

In the spirit of stimulating dialogue on this subject, I offer the following criteria: learning focused on clear and measurable goals for student outcomes guided by several types of disaggregated data and other forms of evidence; learning that for the most part occurs simultaneously with the execution of the core tasks of teaching and leadership (teachers and leaders learn while doing rather than learning about things they are expected to do); and learning that predominantly occurs within school-based teams.

In the spirit of Virginia Apgar and with the assistance of others, I developed two acronyms (one moderately self serving)—SPARKS and CREATE—to stimulate and clarify my thinking:

1. Student-learning focused, Practice continually improved, All teachers engaged, Routine & daily educator learning, Knowledge-based decisions, and Staff teamwork (SPARKS)

2. Core tasks of teaching, Results for students, Every day, All teachers, Team-based learning, Evidence-based decision making (CREATE)

Taken together, the ideas I’ve suggested above offer a compelling purpose that energizes the demanding work of creating high-quality professional learning and teamwork in schools and provide a manageable set of indicators to guide in its implementation and to assess progress. I encourage you to develop your own APGAR (or use one of mine) and welcome your views on this subject.