We often talk about coherence in teaching for several reasons. One is to ensure that kids are taught the same content within the same grade level and school to school. I think one could argue, one of the reasons for state standards would be for coherence district to district. Now with Common Core State Standards (CCSS) coming (link to the right), one of these goals would be coherence state to state.
I do not think that I posted previously -- that during one of my weeks in March visiting three different schools in three different cities (Kirkkonummi, Helsinki, & Vantaa), three different mathematics teachers were all teaching proportional reasoning. Coincidental? I doubt it. There are less instructional hours for mathematics weekly and overall in Finland than in Chicago; thus, I think the teachers need to strategically prioritize their lessons. The National Curriculum for Mathematics in Finland (link to the right) is more general than our national standards, but I also think it has less "requirements" at each grade level. (I need to do more analysis and comparison of both USA and Finland's national standards, but I doubt that will get done before I leave Finland.)
There are very consistent, coherent approaches to unit assessments which I suggest have several educational benefits. Typically mathematics teachers administer unit tests with 5-7 problems. Here is the interesting dynamic, it is very common (almost standard) that each problem is worth 6 points. Teachers consistently develop the rubric that the answer of each problem is worth 1 point and the process to get to the answer is worth 5 points. (Many Finnish teachers, when I asked, would say that maybe it is too traditional because it has been done for so long, but it seems to be working.) Now, I am not suggesting we should just do this in Chicago, but at least think about the implications. Would you agree? What could be some other benefits to both teaching and learning from this consistent practice?
There are many Chicago mathematics teachers who also expect and allocate more credit to the process than the answer, but I am sorry to say as an instructional coach I believe there are even more CPS teachers that do not. There is still too much emphasis on the answer and not on the process. We have been emphasizing the process to solve the mathematics for years (decades?) if you think about it. NCTM standards (link to the right) and now CCSS mathematics standards both expect it, but why don't many teachers build it into their year long instructional program? It is unfortunate that it is often taught to students that showing your work is "needed to get credit for the ISAT extended response" mathematics problems instead of just modeling and expecting it as best practices of problem solving all year long.
Something else to ponder with you -- teachers here give so, so many less mathematics quizzes and tests (not talking about standardized assessments here) during the course of the school year than I or most of my CPS colleagues do. Any thoughts? I need to talk about this idea further in a subsequent post.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Assessment Data - Where does it go?
So... there are some assessments that schools can "choose" to take to see how their students are doing in comparison to other schools in their city and the national average. These exams are optional at 6th and 9th grades. Many of the schools I have been visiting chose to give the 9th gr mathematics exam (along with some other exams) last week.
The ninth grade mathematics exam is written and distributed by MAOL (Matemaattisten Aineiden Opettajien Liitto MAOL). MAOL is the national mathematics, physics, and chemistry teachers organization (kind of like NCTM and NSTA combined). MAOL also writes a detailed rubric to ensure the tests are graded consistently.
Ready for this? The mathematics teachers (who choose to give the exam) grade their own students' exams and then enter the scores anonymously into a central database. Thus, there is a national database without student names so each student, teacher, school, and city knows how they are doing in comparison to the national average.
The benefit of anonymity? There is no ranking of students or schools or cities' performance - it is just a formative baseline.
Another educational benefit - think of the educational coherence and consistency that is established when all the teachers score and report their own assessments. In addition, everyone takes the mathematics test the same day; thus, afterwards the test becomes a public document.
At the end of secondary school, students who choose to pursue college take the required national matriculation exam. I will explain how that whole process works in a subsequent post.
The ninth grade mathematics exam is written and distributed by MAOL (Matemaattisten Aineiden Opettajien Liitto MAOL). MAOL is the national mathematics, physics, and chemistry teachers organization (kind of like NCTM and NSTA combined). MAOL also writes a detailed rubric to ensure the tests are graded consistently.
Ready for this? The mathematics teachers (who choose to give the exam) grade their own students' exams and then enter the scores anonymously into a central database. Thus, there is a national database without student names so each student, teacher, school, and city knows how they are doing in comparison to the national average.
The benefit of anonymity? There is no ranking of students or schools or cities' performance - it is just a formative baseline.
Another educational benefit - think of the educational coherence and consistency that is established when all the teachers score and report their own assessments. In addition, everyone takes the mathematics test the same day; thus, afterwards the test becomes a public document.
At the end of secondary school, students who choose to pursue college take the required national matriculation exam. I will explain how that whole process works in a subsequent post.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Teachers Weekly Instructional Responsibility
How can we organize our schools so that teachers have time to:
1. Plan and prepare inquiry-based, engaging lessons?
2. Collaborate with colleagues about students or subject matter?
3. Provide substantive feedback to students to accelerate their learning?
Teachers in Finland (my work has focused on grades 7-9) are paid a base salary of 21 weekly lesson hours. Allow me to elaborate... if you teach Finnish or Swedish or science, you are actually paid for 18 lesson hours of instruction and 3 hours to grade essays or prepare experiments. Isn't that pragmatic? If you teach more than the 21 lesson hours, you are paid a little extra. Most of the mathematics and science teachers I have met teach 24 lesson hours a week.
So if you teach 24 lesson hours, that is about 5 hours a day, but actually you might teach 6 hours one day and three hours another. Thus, there is flexibility in the schedule and work week for each teacher to manage the work -- at school and not in front of kids. Does that make sense? Does something need to be clarified?
In Chicago (and probably the U.S.) -- often, planning/preparing lessons is on the teacher's personal time. Collaboration with colleagues is during common preps (if you have them), but often teachers are given work to do during some of their collaboration time so they often choose their other free weekly prep periods to do their lesson preparation. With the nonstop instructional day, I believe, most CPS teachers either do quick grading at school OR because they are tired from nonstop day supervising kids, take their grading home. The disadvantages of this lack of time means either students do not receive substantive feedback to correct their misconceptions, or if they do, it probably is not returned timely and (as research shows) loses the instructional impact.
I have developed and advocated a variety of schedules over the years for schools and my grade level teams because the schedules provide the philosophical framework to enable (or prevent) instructional flexibility and professional collaboration. How about all of the schools in the district?
If the adminstration creates a schedule or if teachers do not advocate for themselves -- this minimal opportunity to prepare lessons and collaborate with colleagues is lost. How can our teachers have more time (not teaching) built into their school day?
1. Plan and prepare inquiry-based, engaging lessons?
2. Collaborate with colleagues about students or subject matter?
3. Provide substantive feedback to students to accelerate their learning?
Teachers in Finland (my work has focused on grades 7-9) are paid a base salary of 21 weekly lesson hours. Allow me to elaborate... if you teach Finnish or Swedish or science, you are actually paid for 18 lesson hours of instruction and 3 hours to grade essays or prepare experiments. Isn't that pragmatic? If you teach more than the 21 lesson hours, you are paid a little extra. Most of the mathematics and science teachers I have met teach 24 lesson hours a week.
So if you teach 24 lesson hours, that is about 5 hours a day, but actually you might teach 6 hours one day and three hours another. Thus, there is flexibility in the schedule and work week for each teacher to manage the work -- at school and not in front of kids. Does that make sense? Does something need to be clarified?
In Chicago (and probably the U.S.) -- often, planning/preparing lessons is on the teacher's personal time. Collaboration with colleagues is during common preps (if you have them), but often teachers are given work to do during some of their collaboration time so they often choose their other free weekly prep periods to do their lesson preparation. With the nonstop instructional day, I believe, most CPS teachers either do quick grading at school OR because they are tired from nonstop day supervising kids, take their grading home. The disadvantages of this lack of time means either students do not receive substantive feedback to correct their misconceptions, or if they do, it probably is not returned timely and (as research shows) loses the instructional impact.
I have developed and advocated a variety of schedules over the years for schools and my grade level teams because the schedules provide the philosophical framework to enable (or prevent) instructional flexibility and professional collaboration. How about all of the schools in the district?
If the adminstration creates a schedule or if teachers do not advocate for themselves -- this minimal opportunity to prepare lessons and collaborate with colleagues is lost. How can our teachers have more time (not teaching) built into their school day?
Monday, April 23, 2012
Built in Breaks for All Ages
Doubt you know this, but the most common instructional hour for students and teachers in Finland is to have 45 minutes of instruction followed by a 15 minute break -- for both the kids & teachers. This is at all grade levels: primary, lower secondary (middle school), and upper secondary. Everyone takes breaks. (Some of the schools I visited - especially middle school (gr 7-9) --- have adjusted the schedule to have 75 or 90 minute periods followed by 15 minute breaks.)
Teachers typically go to the teachers' lounge, share a cup of coffee, and return to their class refreshed. (Hmm - I am lucky to see many of my colleagues over a 45 minute lunch break and my preparation period, however, most of my CPS colleagues in 450 elementary schools have not seen or had a break with their colleagues once their school day started.) We could benefit from a few more breaks in our school day with colleagues and without students.
So our own kids who are in 2nd grade and 5th grade here in Helsinki typically have 3 to 5 fifteen minute recesses a day. In these grades, the students go outside year round (cold, snow, or light rain) for some fresh air and exercise. I believe many of the younger kids in Chicago have at least 1 break in the day, but all of our grades (primary, intermediate, and middle school) could benefit from a few more breaks.
All or most teachers take one turn a week supervising the kids during a recess or lunch.
Hmm, do you think Chicago teachers would supervise kids one day a week to build in more breaks to the instructional day?
Teachers typically go to the teachers' lounge, share a cup of coffee, and return to their class refreshed. (Hmm - I am lucky to see many of my colleagues over a 45 minute lunch break and my preparation period, however, most of my CPS colleagues in 450 elementary schools have not seen or had a break with their colleagues once their school day started.) We could benefit from a few more breaks in our school day with colleagues and without students.
So our own kids who are in 2nd grade and 5th grade here in Helsinki typically have 3 to 5 fifteen minute recesses a day. In these grades, the students go outside year round (cold, snow, or light rain) for some fresh air and exercise. I believe many of the younger kids in Chicago have at least 1 break in the day, but all of our grades (primary, intermediate, and middle school) could benefit from a few more breaks.
All or most teachers take one turn a week supervising the kids during a recess or lunch.
Hmm, do you think Chicago teachers would supervise kids one day a week to build in more breaks to the instructional day?
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Class Size - Does it matter? YES!
I do not get it. My Finnish colleagues do not get it.
Why can't U.S. policy makers and administrators understand the obvious challenges of larger classes and the educational impact of smaller classes?
Some people say there is no definitive data -- something else for me to research or to substantiate...
This past fall, I had four classes of 35 students in Chicago. The last year I was in the classroom, I had three classes of 37 students. How do we expect teachers to (1) know their students' strengths and needs well and (2) plan & teach engaging, inquiry-based lessons effectively?
Here, almost all of the classrooms I have visited have 18-22 students with a couple that had 24 students (There were also several classes with less than 18). Every mathematics lesson I have observed thus far, the teacher presents the theory and/or examples and then gives the students time to work. Then the teacher circulates the room checking-in with each student 2 and often 3 times to check for understanding and clarify misconceptions.
That is the most consistent practice and, I would argue, most effective formative assessment I have seen. As the teachers consistently shared in interviews and I witnessed in each classroom - the teachers know their students. No standardized assessment would ever give this timely, accurate information as the teacher assessing each student, each lesson.
So how about connecting some dots... standardized tests cost millions of dollars annually. Smaller class size means more teachers would need much more investment of funds. So why can't we reduce and prioritize all the required standardized tests and invest the savings in smaller class size? Am I mistaken? I have the impression that we talk about these issues separately and they are so interconnected -- testing, class size, & instructional time.
Why can't U.S. policy makers and administrators understand the obvious challenges of larger classes and the educational impact of smaller classes?
Some people say there is no definitive data -- something else for me to research or to substantiate...
This past fall, I had four classes of 35 students in Chicago. The last year I was in the classroom, I had three classes of 37 students. How do we expect teachers to (1) know their students' strengths and needs well and (2) plan & teach engaging, inquiry-based lessons effectively?
Here, almost all of the classrooms I have visited have 18-22 students with a couple that had 24 students (There were also several classes with less than 18). Every mathematics lesson I have observed thus far, the teacher presents the theory and/or examples and then gives the students time to work. Then the teacher circulates the room checking-in with each student 2 and often 3 times to check for understanding and clarify misconceptions.
That is the most consistent practice and, I would argue, most effective formative assessment I have seen. As the teachers consistently shared in interviews and I witnessed in each classroom - the teachers know their students. No standardized assessment would ever give this timely, accurate information as the teacher assessing each student, each lesson.
So how about connecting some dots... standardized tests cost millions of dollars annually. Smaller class size means more teachers would need much more investment of funds. So why can't we reduce and prioritize all the required standardized tests and invest the savings in smaller class size? Am I mistaken? I have the impression that we talk about these issues separately and they are so interconnected -- testing, class size, & instructional time.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Standardized Tests - Too many? Too much $?
For those checking in periodically -- SORRY that I have not posted for a month. I will try to do better. To date, I have visited 10 schools and about 50 classes and 24 teachers. I will visit less schools in the coming weeks and focus on data entry and analysis.
HERE is the question of the day, week, month, & decade -- Why does Chicago Public Schools and most U.S. school district impose so many standardized assessments? No one seems to be asking the questions about the instructional time and education funds devoted to these exercises. How do we expect teachers to use all these various measures? Did you know that, (if I calculate correctly and depending on how schools schedule it), CPS 8th graders could spend a portion of 35 instrutional days with one district required test or another (NWEA or Scantron, ISAT, Common Core quarterly tests, IL writing, and EXPLORE). No wonder CPS leadership wants to lengthen the school day and year -- look at how much instructional time is traded for testing. This is one of several points I want to raise in the coming weeks.
I remember being in my classroom this fall with my discouraged students after they had taken one of the district required Common Core State Standards (CCSS) assessments. For those reading, do you know what this means? Let me try to briefly explain... CCSS has been adopted by 46 (or so) states for 2014. Teachers are beginning to learn and implement the new standards. To understand this, at least from a mathematics perspective, this work takes time to transition mathematics concepts from one grade level to another. CPS in its infinite wisdom had students take reading and mathematics tests in the fall... The kids came out of those tests discouraged and lacking confidence because they were primarily tested on concepts that they have not studied nor have most teachers had an opportunity to teach.
So besides the time -- how much do all these tests cost the district? This is a question to put out there for teachers and parents to know. I predict it is in the millions of dollars for Chicago alone. I will try to find out. (Just looked for several hours -- found nothing -- looks like a Freedom of Information request...)
I doubt most parents, and for that matter, most citizens have any idea how many days students lose and how many standardized tests students take annually in school. I will need to discuss this in many more posts, but keep in mind the classroom teachers still need to conduct a variety of assessments of the lessons and units that they are actually teaching to check for student understanding and learning.
As you can imagine, Finland does not have standardized testing. This past week when I showed my list of Chicago assessments for an interview with a teacher, he said. "Seems they have real trust issues of teachers." Last week a principal's reaction to the same list was, "What is the reason for all of that testing?"
Given tight budget times everywhere, how much time and how much money should we dedicate to standardized testing? I doubt the U.S. will ever completely eliminate them, but I would suggest that policy makers are requiring way too many tests that reduce instructional time, add more teaching challenges, and suck out all the joy of learning.
HERE is the question of the day, week, month, & decade -- Why does Chicago Public Schools and most U.S. school district impose so many standardized assessments? No one seems to be asking the questions about the instructional time and education funds devoted to these exercises. How do we expect teachers to use all these various measures? Did you know that, (if I calculate correctly and depending on how schools schedule it), CPS 8th graders could spend a portion of 35 instrutional days with one district required test or another (NWEA or Scantron, ISAT, Common Core quarterly tests, IL writing, and EXPLORE). No wonder CPS leadership wants to lengthen the school day and year -- look at how much instructional time is traded for testing. This is one of several points I want to raise in the coming weeks.
I remember being in my classroom this fall with my discouraged students after they had taken one of the district required Common Core State Standards (CCSS) assessments. For those reading, do you know what this means? Let me try to briefly explain... CCSS has been adopted by 46 (or so) states for 2014. Teachers are beginning to learn and implement the new standards. To understand this, at least from a mathematics perspective, this work takes time to transition mathematics concepts from one grade level to another. CPS in its infinite wisdom had students take reading and mathematics tests in the fall... The kids came out of those tests discouraged and lacking confidence because they were primarily tested on concepts that they have not studied nor have most teachers had an opportunity to teach.
So besides the time -- how much do all these tests cost the district? This is a question to put out there for teachers and parents to know. I predict it is in the millions of dollars for Chicago alone. I will try to find out. (Just looked for several hours -- found nothing -- looks like a Freedom of Information request...)
I doubt most parents, and for that matter, most citizens have any idea how many days students lose and how many standardized tests students take annually in school. I will need to discuss this in many more posts, but keep in mind the classroom teachers still need to conduct a variety of assessments of the lessons and units that they are actually teaching to check for student understanding and learning.
As you can imagine, Finland does not have standardized testing. This past week when I showed my list of Chicago assessments for an interview with a teacher, he said. "Seems they have real trust issues of teachers." Last week a principal's reaction to the same list was, "What is the reason for all of that testing?"
Given tight budget times everywhere, how much time and how much money should we dedicate to standardized testing? I doubt the U.S. will ever completely eliminate them, but I would suggest that policy makers are requiring way too many tests that reduce instructional time, add more teaching challenges, and suck out all the joy of learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)