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

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?

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.

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?