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...

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.?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?