Over the last few years, a confluence of ed psychology fads, being a parent, and trickle-down acronymage has had a profound effect on the way I see myself and my students.

When the “Growth Mindset” fad hit education, it like every fad before it risked being distilled down to soundbytes and sloughed off as trite. Though I was actually not a fan of Carol Dweck’s book Mindset (I tell folks that there are about seven really good pages in there) the idea is simple, brilliant, and exactly what I needed at this stage of my life and career.

In my teaching, growth mindset manifested in my drive to make learning progressions clearer for my students so they could understand “what growth looks like” rather than blindly throwing darts at an unclear target (“Will this one get an ‘A’? Let’s give it a shot…”). Showing a student who is operating at an “F” level what an “A” looks like isn’t helpful: Showing what a “D” looks like makes growth seem possible.

Around the same time I was reading and learning about growth mindset, I found myself sitting at the dining room table watching as my eldest son deflated when I pointed out the one (one!) error he had made on his weekend math homework. I realized that growth mindset needed to be considered in my parenting as well as my teaching.

And simultaneously: TPEP.

I’m National Board Certified (and working on my renewal). I’ve received awards and been teacher of the year (ain’t I special). Even RateMyTeacher has nice things to say. And when I’m honest with myself on my evaluation, there are some “Basics” in there.

As there should be.

For example, Criteria 1. In the Marzano framework, 1.1 addresses learning goals and targets as well as scales. Achieving “Proficient” in this criterion requires that my lessons have learning targets and goals with scales associated with the goals. In Marzano language, the “learning goals” are the long term goals, targets are the daily learning outcomes. Scales represent clear success criteria associated with the long term goals. I’m almost there… I have daily targets aligned to goals, and many of my goals include clear and scaled success criteria. For those goals that I do have all the ducks in a row, I do monitor student understanding of the targets, goals, and scales, as is outlined in “Proficient.”

The big question: Do I do this consistently? The honest answer: No. I don’t. Not yet. I’m still learning when it comes to that discrete part of my practice.

I have many reasons: I’m teaching a class I haven’t taught since pre-Common-Core-and-TPEP days. Proficiency scales are still new and I’m still refining them. I feel Proficient in the “spirit” of 1.1, but not the letter of the rubric. So I think my standard operational zone is “High Basic” (not a real rating).

And guess what…being “Basic” in a component here and there is okay.

The difficulty is “being Basic” but “feeling Distinguished.” That’s where the trickle-down acronymage meets up with growth mindset and parenting.

Five years ago, if I had been subject to TPEP as it is today, I would’ve had a very hard time accepting any rating other than “Distinguished.” My gut reaction would have been to defend myself: “With all I do, and all I’ve done, you are going to rate me at Basic?! Shall we explore my resume and take a gander at the plaques on the wall?”

Then, if a good evaluator could hold a mirror up to my practice and point out to me that my perception of myself and the standard clearly outlined in the framework didn’t match up, I could so easily deflate just like my son did when I fumbled through pointing out the one error on his math worksheet and challenging his fixed view of himself as a math student.

Now though, I realize that Basic is not fixed and it is not who I am. (I joke about getting our rating embroidered on school polo shirts… “Proficient” or “Basic” seem so final and fixed, labels worthy of having mom sew them into our collars.) Rather, Basic means that in this one aspect of my practice, I recognize room to grow. In our framework at least, how to get to the next step is fairly well spelled out. Further, as I’ve now learned to point out when helping my son with his math homework, gaps and errors and mistakes are not unalterable deficiencies. Far from it.

Overall, like the vast majority of all teachers in this system, I’ll earn a summative “Proficient.” I might even have a component or two that scores “Distinguished.” More importantly, though, I believe that the language of our framework does a very good job of not only describing my practice (warts and all) as well as helping me envision what that next level might look like.

This past weekend, I led a workshop for my colleagues titled “Proficient to Distinguished,” wherein we examined and deconstructed the Marzano rubric language for the top tier in our evaluation framework. Let’s be real here: a lot of teachers “feel Distinguished” but operate and make a huge difference in the lives of children, while solidly embodying “Proficient.” In a climate where teachers are already so vilified and over-criticized, hearing that you as a teacher make a profound difference in the lives of students but still do not yet earn that top tier label can easily come of as just one more insult.

Thus, me of five years ago would have a really hard time not getting the “D.”

To which I again connect back to growth mindset. Isn’t it possible to be doing an amazing job, be changing lives, and still have room to grow?

The me of today says absolutely yes.