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.?

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?

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.

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?

Narrowing Project Focus

Heidi, my advisor, took another chunk of time today to discuss the focus of my Fulbright project. The more narrow the focus, the more doable the school visit/data-collection, and thus, the more attainable the goals.

Two of the dilemmas for me as a Chicago Public School (CPS) teacher are the ever increasing number of assessments CPS district leaders have added to the instructional school year and, now, the amount of time that CPS plans to lengthen the school day in 2012-13 (7.5 hours!).

From the Finnish perspective, both of these decisions are the total opposite to the successful policies and frameworks Finland has thoughtfully and incrementally implemented over 20+ years. Finland has been deliberate not to impose frequent standardized tests and, thus, so much more time can be devoted to instruction. The classroom teacher has the responsibility (and support) to conduct diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments. The schools each design and implement their own comprehensive end-of-semester evaluation. The third type of assessment is a random sample assessment conducted annually by the National Board of Education. About one fifth of the students per grade level take the national exam to gauge learning in reading, mathematics, and science. (Instructional time & schedules for another day.)

So... this disparity with assessment... I am going to dive deeper into the Effective and Efficient use of Assessment to Inform Mathematics Instruction with my school visits. How are they doing so well internationally with so few assessments? (Hmm, for science fair project colleagues and students out there... my hypothesis is: More time for instruction. Now I need to fine tune "my procedure" for the experiment.) Among the elements I plan to include are various school types, classroom observations, principal interviews, teacher interviews (before & after a lesson), and student interviews (after lessons).

Any thoughts or suggestions?