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.

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.