Top Performing Countries' Strategies Not Found in the U.S.

"In most of these countries, few, if any, of the upper secondary school examinations are scored by computers and much of the examination is in the form of  prompts requiring the student to work out complex problems or write short essays.  They do this because the  ministries in these countries have grave doubts about the ability of computers to properly assess the qualities they think most important in the education of their students."
~ Mark Tucker, Standing on the Shoulder of Giants: An American Agenda for Education Reform

Here is what the PISA top performing countries are doing that the U.S. is not:

1. Incentives:  Gateway exams from basic education to upper secondary education and/or from upper secondary education to university (designed & administered as explained above).

2. Cohesion:  National standards aligned with the curriculum which is aligned with the instructional materials available to teachers.  Gateway exams are also aligned with the curriculum as is the training of prospective teachers in teacher training programs.

3. Comprehensive, Coherent curriculum:  National curriculum goes far beyond mathematics and the home language to include science, social sciences, arts, music morals, and in Finland, philosophy.

4. Teacher Quality:  huge, long term work pieces:
    a. Criteria for high quality teacher candidate selection
    b. High  Caliber Teacher Training at Tier I universities to develop strong content knowledge
    c. Institutions with thorough pedagogical preparation following the medical doctor clinical training
    d. Very Competitive compensation of teachers like other professions which also builds the career's importance
    e. Accountability to colleagues which in turn establishes professional autonomy

5. School Finance:  Most top performing countries have moved away from local control of school finance towards a system to differentiate funding to enable all students to achieve high standards

All of this work is monumental when we embrace any component to adjust.  If you want to learn more about this report google "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants:  An American Agenda for Education Reform" by Marc Tucker.  Mr. Tucker also presented at UIC's World Class Education Collogquium. Here is a link to his presentation (scroll down and watch both parts):  http://worldclasseducationillinois.org/interviews/  (Pasi Sahlberg's presentation is also at the same place. 

Where to begin?  What to do -- let's look to Ontario, Canada next...

U.S. Education Strategies Not Found in Top Performing Countries

"We conclude that the strategies driving the best performing systems are rarely found in the United States, and, conversely, that the education strategies now most popular in the United States are conspicuous by their absence in the countries with the most successful education systems."
~ Mark Tucker, Standing on the Shoulder of Giants: An American Agenda for Education Reform
There you have it. (Google the report to read more, if you would like.)

Have you heard of Mark Tucker?  He is the president and CEO of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). When U.S. Dept of Education Secretary Arne Duncan asked the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for a report on what the top performing countries of PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) are doing, the OECD requested NCEE to write the report. Mark Tucker published the book Surpassing Shanghai this year of which the above-mentioned report is included.
 
So what do they identify that the U.S. is doing that the top performing countries are not?

1. Grade-by-grade national testing in English and mathematics.
2. Typically brief, unconnected practice teaching for pre-service teachers.
3. Assigning teachers to teach subjects that they have not been trained to teach.
4. Local control of school finance
5. Charter schools and voucher programs
6. Using student performance data on standardized tests to "reward" and "punish" teachers
There is much more -- but enough for now.  Next post, I will talk about what Finland (& other top performers) have in place that the U.S. does not.

Why does our country, our states, & school districts continue with OPPOSITE policies & frameworks that are not working compared to the successful countries?  We are wasting so much time of our kids' futures, not to mention money.

Are CPS' New Approaches Best for Kids' Learning?

This is the original article/letter that I had to condense and was also edited...  Thoughts?

            I am a CPS teacher conducting Fulbright research on the teaching and learning of mathematics in Finland. I have taught middle school mathematics and science for sixteen years with CPS and I collaborated with teachers as an instructional coach the last four years. Since 2000, Finland has been among the world’s top achievers in literacy, mathematics, and science on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Since I left for sabbatical in January, CPS has decided to implement several strategies that diametrically oppose both Finland’s successful approaches, as I have observed them, as well as recognized international research on the strategies that Finland uses to ensure that teaching and learning of mathematics occurs at high levels. I am concerned that by moving forward in the opposite direction of these successful approaches, CPS could do more harm than good to the quality of mathematics education in Chicago. Proven successful strategies include:   

NO Standardized Testing

Finland uses several methods to gauge how schools and students are performing. For example, the National Board of Education checks learning periodically by administering a test to a random sample of students.  Students are not tested in every subject, in every grade, every year. In addition, there are optional annual assessments that teachers and schools can choose to administer anonymously to compare their school to the national average. Students’ names with scores are not reported, nor ranked. Finnish educators are responsible for assessing their own students’ learning and do not understand why Chicago requires so many standardized tests that have been identified as narrowing the curriculum and instruction. According to the 2011-2012 CPS assessment calendar there are potentially over 30 instructional days for some form of standardized test at the 8^th grade level; whereas, Finland has none. Eliminating even half of these tests for the district would result in regained instructional time for kids and substantial savings with less test administration. 

Small Class Size

Based on classroom observations as well as interviews with teachers and principals, I submit that one of the most effective strategies that has contributed to Finland’s success is a smaller class size compared to Chicago. Every middle school class I have visited has 18-24 students. Furthermore, I have observed that almost every mathematics teacher here presents the day’s concept then touches base with each student 1, 2 or 3 times during class. Recently, in Chicago I have had classes of 33, 35 and even 37 students. With fewer students in a class, CPS teachers, like Finnish teachers, would be able to know their students better and support their range of learning needs.

Trust Teachers

            Finnish teachers are trusted to create, instruct, and evaluate the teaching and learning. Both teachers and principals say that they are successful because they are trusted as educators to design lessons that work for their students. In addition to this respect and autonomy, teachers and the teachers union are consulted by the National Board of Education whenever reforms are designed. When I talk to Finnish teachers, principals, and policy makers here, they have a difficult time comprehending why CPS does not involve teachers more in deciding what is needed for kids to be successful. As Chicago plans for a new school year, Central Office could make steps towards demonstrating some trust by giving schools the autonomy to design their instructional programs (including the length of the day ) that will meet the needs of all learners.

Slow, Consistent Approach

            Forty years ago, Finland was not performing at its current level but they made equity of education a top priority, developed their structures, and stayed the course. During my twenty years as a CPS teacher, I have lost count of the annual initiatives that have come and gone. The next school year, Chicago teachers will continue the monumental tasks of transitioning to the national Common Core State Standards curriculum, following a comprehensive CPS Framework for Teaching , effectively implementing a longer school day, and learning a new CPS teacher evaluation system (that will include students' performance on standardized tests). Recently, numerous local, national, and international educators stressed the importance for districts to have both research and evidence-based decisions for school reform initiatives.
             CPS leadership plans to implement yet again many new frameworks for the new school year. Chicago should slow down, study top performing countries’ educational systems, test our students less, and trust our teachers more. Instead of advancing more policies opposite those of top performing countries, Chicago should follow these countries' lead, give back control over teaching and assessment to teachers and thus return the focus to our students’ learning.

Robert Reynolds, NBCT/Mathematics

Distinguished Fulbright Teacher

Mary Gage Peterson Elementary School

For more information (links):
Time: Beyond the Classroom: An Analysis of a Chicago Public School Teacher's Actual Workday
Testing (please endorse): National Resolution Against Standards High-Stakes Testing
PISA: Finland's Slow and Steady Reform for Consistently High Results (Chpt 5)
Reform: What the U.S. Can Learn from Finland's School Reform
Dr. Pasi Sahlberg’s (Finnish educator & author) blog: Finnish Education Reform
Rob Reynolds’ blog: Mathematics the Finnish Way

Finnish Success: Teachers-Time-Trust-(No)Tests-Class Size

As I try to capture my time and Fulbright experience, the hardest aspect to explain thoroughly and accurately is the trust of teachers.  Many have written about it, but you just have to experience it.  I  am the fortunate one to experience the trust through Fulbright -- Thanks Senator Fulbright for envisioning these international partnerships and collaboration!

In Chicago and the U.S., we need to revisit, in the long term, our preparation and training of teachers.  I will write more about that soon.  Today, I want to write about more immediate issues that individual school districts have some control over:  Time, Trust, Testing (none), & Class Size.

Time:  There is plenty of research out there about the use of time -- more time in the school day (or year) does not necessarily equate to better achievement.  It is the quality use of time, along with other factors that enable teachers to set up the opportunity for quality teaching & learning for kids.  Look at Finland -- one of the  shortest school days, but still among the top performers world wide.  Why is that?  Shorter school days, especially for younger kids, so that they maximize their attention span.  Plenty of breaks built into the school day so kids are refreshed and attentive.

Trust:  Teachers have more time built into their school days and weeks without kids in front of them so that they can (1) collaborate with colleagues, (2) prepare experiments and inquiry-based lessons, and (3) provide substantive written feedback to kids (Love this last one -- I  spend so much of my personal time providing feedback to help kids with their misconceptions). 

Tests - NO STANDARDIZED TESTS:  OK, so we will not get rid of all of the tests in the U.S. any time soon, but couldn't we eliminate half?!  If districts eliminated some of the tests they would: (1) demonstrate trust for teachers' work (google Assessment for Learning and find all the international research out there how top performing countries have given this trust to teachers with formative assesments and reduced/elminated standardized tests), (2) regain instructional time, (3) provide substantial financial savings (think of all the costs), and (4) relieve kids' stress, and much more...

Class Size:  every middle school class I visited had 18-24 students.  The teacher typically (almost always) presented the lesson or challenging  problems then circulated the classroom and checked in with each student 1, 2, or 3 times.  In this setting, it makes sense to all that these teachers know their students' strengths and needs better than I ever will.  In recent years, I have had 33, 35, and even 37 kids in a class often with special ed and ELL kids included.

I want to shout from the roof tops one of the most obvious examples of trust here and lack of trust in the U.S.  When teachers in Finland speak about what is best for kids' learning -- they are heard and even sought out by principals & policymakers.  Usually when American teachers speak out, education officials, policymakers and even some parents perceive teachers to be advocating for themselves first and not what is best for kids to be successful.  How can teachers' suggestions be more respected by the supervisors and policymakers in Chicago and the U.S.?

Finnish Teacher Education in Action

As part of the celebration of Helsinki - World Design Capital for 2012, the University's Department of Teacher Education has produced a series of videos about teacher education (each subtitle is the link to YouTube).  Which video clip highlights best the differences between Finland and U.S.A.'s teacher training?

Becoming aTeacher
This first video introduces the respect that the teaching profession has in Finland and why so many Finns are proud to pursue this calling.

Finnish Teacher Education
The teacher education approach emphasizes their training and preparation for the teaching to the whole child.  Teachers are required to earn a master’s degree which usually takes five years.

TeachingPractice - Reflection in Action
This video clip is of two student teachers who are working together with a supervising master teacher in a sixth grade class at the practice teaching school.  An instructor from the university (my advisor) also observes and facilitates reflection during the practice teaching. (We are in the back of the class observing this lesson.)  As I stated in an earlier post, this practice teaching series happens three times during their training.

Tribute toDiversity
This segment provides background on the teacher’s code of ethics and among the techniques the supervising teacher models for the student teachers is differentiated instruction.

Smartphone inTeaching and Learning

This is a six minute video clip about using Smartphones in class.  I am not sure how many teachers are using this technique, but it is great to see the productive use of this technology.

Shame on Me!

Yesterday, quite a bit of the U.S. education news was the ranking of the Nation's Top High Schools by U.S. News and World Report.  

AHH - Shame on Me!  This is one of the most common criticisms Finland has of the United States -- the constant ranking of schools, cities, and states.  Unfortunately, it is becoming more common to do the public ranking of teachers in some cities and states.  What is the value of the ranking?  How is it used?  What is the criteria for the ranking?  Often standardized, high-stakes tests, right?  And what narrow focus do these tests have?!  Hmm, looks like Step #1 used each state's high school proficiency tests...

Here is the methodology for U.S. News & World Report's ranking:

Step 1: The first step determined whether each school's students were performing better than statistically expected for the average student in the state. We started by looking at reading and math results for all students on each state's high school proficiency tests. We then factored in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students (who tend to score lower) enrolled at the school to identify the schools that were performing better than statistical expectations.
• Step 2: For those schools that made it past this first step, the second step determined whether the school's least-advantaged students (black, Hispanic, and low-income) were performing better than average for similar students in the state. We compared each school's math and reading proficiency rates for disadvantaged students with the statewide results for these student groups and then selected schools that were performing better than this state average.
• Step 3: Schools that made it through the first two steps became eligible to be judged nationally on the final step—college-readiness performance—using Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate test data as the benchmarks for success, depending on which program was largest at the school. AP is a College Board program that offers college-level courses at high schools across the country. The International Baccalaureate program also offers a college-level curriculum.

The important news -- the student/teacher ratio for a majority of these high performing high schools appears to be 16:1 or 17:1 (with some 7:1 or 14:1 or even 26:1 or 28:1).  Let's be more critical of this simple ratio -- it reports the total number of students with the total number of teachers.  In our schools, we have many teachers not in classrooms with students, but they are part of this statistic. Really a national average of 16:1?  I do not know who is/is not counted, but I know our actual class size is considerably larger than 16:1.   If we use this statistic at face value, seems the schools with this lower ratio typically rank higher.  Once again -- I advocate that the less kids at a time we teach, the more effective we can meet their needs (whether remediation or acceleration).  

Here is the link if you want to explore (shame on you too :D):  U.S. News: Nation's Top High Schools

Strategies to Support Struggling Learners

One common strategy in Finland with the early grades, but not a requirement, is to divide the class into two groups:  A and B.  For example, one day a week, typically the first period of the day, group A would come to school for a mathematics lesson and group B would come to school one hour later.  Then another day of the week, it flips with group B coming in early and group A one hour later.  Seems simple?  Can you imagine our schools in Chicago doing this?

Many people, especially my CPS teacher colleagues, would appreciate the effectiveness of this design.  Please excuse me for reminding you that the average class size I have seen is 22 or 24 students so think of providing a mathematics lesson to 11 or 12 students one day a week... That is one way to meet kids' needs in the early years -- but it is a funding decision and school level priority.

Here are some common strategies (but not requirements) at the middle school grades:  Typically there are 3 or 4 "lesson hours" a week for mathematics in grades 6, 7, 8, and 9.  Depending on the struggling students' needs, the student attends class with a special education teacher for 1 or 2 of those lesson hours.  It seems most often that they attend one hour a week with the special education teacher instead of the mathematics teacher.  Both the mathematics and special education teachers routinely collaborate to ensure there is continuity of the content.

In addition, the national curriculum specifically explains that when remedial teaching needs are identified, that the school should develop a plan in cooperation with the parents or guardians to meet that student's need.  As I understand it, it is not for special education but for a student currently struggling with a mathematics unit.  The teacher and the school can meet this student's need during the mathematics lesson, during the school day, or after school.  If it is after school, the small group may meet once a week for a few weeks or until the unit is done.  "Depending" on the school or situation, another group could be organized or not.  This is a school level decision and the principal sets aside funds to pay teachers for this type of flexible need.  If I am not mistaken, in Chicago, after school academic help is typically done for most of the school year for the same students.  While the intent makes sense for us in Chicago, it lacks the flexibility and versatility for the school and the teachers to meet their students' needs.  The limited CPS funding for after school academic help "tied" to and audited for the attendance of the identified students for the whole school year.  What do you think?  Anything unclear?

Autonomy at all Levels

As my project winds down, I have the opportunity to reflect on what I have seen and heard.  The biggest challenge for me is to articulate what I have learned concisely with accuracy. 

So how to bring home the huge impact of autonomy?!  As I listen to my recorded interviews of teachers and principals, the most common response is "It depends."  Why is that phrase a common response you might ask.  Often when I inquire about a particular strategy or framework, given the school and the teachers have autonomy, the teachers have the principals' support to design and implement what they determine to be the most effective approach to meet the identified need.  While this may seem obvious, my experiences in Chicago have shown me that both schools within the district and teachers within the schools are extremely limited by all the education requirements and funding formulas.

Finland is open and deliberate about their national approach to present the National Board of Education curriculum (links to the right) and then make each city, each school, and each teacher self-sufficient with the power and the independence to self-govern.  Isn't that what autonomy should truly be?  My next post will be about how some schools use this autonomy to support struggling learners with mathematics.

Coherence - Big Pic & Day to Day

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

I trust my teachers 110%

"We believe that the happier the teachers are the better learning and results we get from the students.  This is why all the principals in Finland take care of their teachers.  I trust my teachers 110%."

As you may know, in Finland teachers are trusted by principals and parents like I have not seen, read, or experienced in Chicago.  Granted, it took time to get to this level (topic for future posts).  The above quote is from a principal I inteviewed last week, Tommi, about his school's vision for teaching and learning. 

This is another consistent thread I have seen in each school that I have visited.  There is noticeable and understood trust of the teachers.   Noticeable:  collegial dialogue among principals and teachers, equipped work space, comfortable faculty lounge (which is often full of teachers during coffee breaks).  Understood:  flexibility to use free periods as teachers choose, meet with colleagues as teachers determine, completion of reports thoroughly & timely.  I should note -- to my knowledge - teachers always get all of their work done.

So I ask myself, what small, sustainable steps could we implement at the district or school level to be transparent about this trust?  Finland has not waivered from the main framework they identified some thirty / forty years ago.  One of the challenges (frustrations?) in U.S. school districts is that we generally do not take the time to develop nor stay the course for an extended time to give the initiative a chance.  Change takes time and patience.

"Then I would have to teach like a college lecture..."

Here is one consistent practice I have seen in every classroom I have observed (28 so far).  When the students are practicing the day's mathematics concept, the teacher circulates in the classroom and checks for understanding with each student at least 2 times, if not three times.  Can you believe it?

All of the classrooms I have visited have ranged in size from 18 to 24 students, with 22 students probably being the average.  So, I told one of the teachers I have been fortunate to get to know, Antti, that this past fall I taught three science classes with 35 students in each class.  I asked Antti how his teaching, if at all, would change if he had 35 students.  Antti's response "Then I would have to teach like a college lecture.  I would not able to help each individual student as I do now."

As budgets get even tighter in the U.S., I predict class size will go up even more to save money.  How can we convince educational leaders and decision-makers that class size does matter when teachers are trying to meet students' needs?  With large heterogenous classes (which can have struggling, special ed., second language, and accelerated learners), how can committed, caring educators do their best work?

Trust & Respect for Teachers

You may have read about the respect and trust that teachers have in Finland.  I am experiencing it in several ways including the teaching load, the school day schedule, and even the teachers' lounges.

The number of hours a middle school mathematics teacher has is 21 hours to teach.  If they are needed to teach more than 21 hours, they are paid a little more for each hour accordingly.  So if "you do the math" there often is a day during the week with only 1 or 2 classes to teach.  Thus, the teacher can spend that time preparing lessons, grading papers with substantive feedback, or meeting with colleagues.  Teachers also have the independence to leave during the time they are not teaching to get their work done at home.

It is common for mathematics classes to be 60 minutes with a 15 minute break built in or 75 minutes followed by 15 minute break.  Some schools have shifted to 90 minute periods with a 15 minute break built in or followed by a 30 minute break.  Each school designs their instructional schedule with frequent breaks built in for both students and teachers.

Teachers' Lounges:  symbolic respect for teachers and the collaboration.  These are comfortable, welcoming rooms where you often find teachers sharing a cup of coffee and talking.   The school I visited yesterday --  many of the teachers have a coffee break at 10:15 while the students have their break.  This structured time fosters that collaboration and networking.

I will focus on capturing more "doable" steps American schools can structure to foster more trust and respect for teachers.

School Administrators

This topic comes from a question Denise commented on in a previous post...  Denise wondered if any of the schools in Finland had the business model for adminstrators without an education background...

My experience in all the schools that I have visited (7 so far) is that every administrator has an education degree and has taught.  It is very common that the adminstrators (both principals and assistant principals) teach 1 or more classes during the week.  In addition, if I have not said it yet, the school is much more autonomous from their city's department of education.  Thus, they do not have all the mandates from the local government to do -- they focus on the national curriculum and what the team of teachers at the school identifies as best methods and strategies to teach it.

Progress Scheduling School Visits

So my school visits are progressing... After next week's ski holiday winter break, I will have several more schools to visit coming on the radar:

I look forward to visiting a school in Kirkkonummi (about 40 kms away) where the principal has written a problem-based mathematics curriculum and she was a Fulbright teacher about five years ago.  After the winter break, I will also have the opportunity to visit the English School in Helsinki and return to the Viikki Teacher Training School.  My Fulbright buddy Eija has also suggested several schools in the Helsinki metropolitan area that I should pursue.

I  am most excited about the ten schools that Kari Kinnunen (who is with the teachers union) has offered to coordinate for me.  Kari will initiate the contact with 5 schools in Espoo and 5 schools in Vantaa which are both right outside Helsinki, but not visited near as much as the Helsinki schools.  I continue to learn how small Finland is -- Kari had a Fulbright teacher colleague from Chicago at his school many years ago. 

My preference for most of my schools will be to establish a relationship with some teachers and return to the school several times.  Check back to see what I learn.  Any questions you wonder about?

Teachers & Assessment in Finnish Education

OK... we need to start talking about assessment in an open, constructive way in Chicago and the U.S.  Granted Finland implemented reforms 30+ years ago and teachers have more respect, trust, and autonomy, but we have to start somewhere, sometime (and not with the district leaders strategy of the year).  We need a strategic, collaborative, comprehensive approach to assessment planned with educators for children in the U.S.

Today I attended a class about the training for "teacher-conducted" assessments in Finland for the University of Helsinki's STEP (Subject Teacher Education Programme in English) teacher prepartion program.

Most countries are doing less assessment --  not Chicago.  This year, teachers are directed to administer and students are given more assessments -- using more instructional time -- than I have had in twenty years with CPS.  In Finland -- there are NO standardized tests mandated by the country or the city for students to take.  Each school and more specifically each teacher designs and implements the formative assessments and summative assessments to inform their instruction.  The only national test is the matriculation exam at the end of upper secondary students for those students (about 2/3 of the students) that want to continue to college.

OK -- reality is with the national Common Core State Standards (CCSS) that national assessments are here to stay.  How can we get back most of the instructional time we have lost to all the other mandated district, state, and national tests?  How do we as teachers get more of an effective, respected voice as to the quantity and format of the assessments that students need to take?  Is there a U.S. city or state doing this better than Chicago or the State of Illinois?