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?
Showing posts with label National Board of Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Board of Education. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Monday, May 7, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Fulbright Buddy: Eija
Today was a special day -- met "my buddy" Eija Kauppinen at the National Board of Education (NBE). Eija went to the U.S. last year with the Fulbright Distinguished Awards in Teaching program so she can understands better than most what I will try to accomplish. Eija is a counselor with music education with Finland's NBE. We had lunch at the NBE, Eija shared her experiences in the U.S. and I had a chance to explain my goals and plans for my project in Finland. After lunch, Eija took me upstairs to meet Leo Pahkin, Counsellor of Mathematics Education at the Finnish National Board of Education. Leo recommended some schools to visit and also welcomed me to return and discuss my experiences visiting mathematics teachers in Finland. Another great day with access to important, collaborative decision makers with education in Finland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)