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.?

Shame on Me!

Yesterday, quite a bit of the U.S. education news was the ranking of the Nation's Top High Schools by U.S. News and World Report.  

AHH - Shame on Me!  This is one of the most common criticisms Finland has of the United States -- the constant ranking of schools, cities, and states.  Unfortunately, it is becoming more common to do the public ranking of teachers in some cities and states.  What is the value of the ranking?  How is it used?  What is the criteria for the ranking?  Often standardized, high-stakes tests, right?  And what narrow focus do these tests have?!  Hmm, looks like Step #1 used each state's high school proficiency tests...

Here is the methodology for U.S. News & World Report's ranking:

Step 1: The first step determined whether each school's students were performing better than statistically expected for the average student in the state. We started by looking at reading and math results for all students on each state's high school proficiency tests. We then factored in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students (who tend to score lower) enrolled at the school to identify the schools that were performing better than statistical expectations.
• Step 2: For those schools that made it past this first step, the second step determined whether the school's least-advantaged students (black, Hispanic, and low-income) were performing better than average for similar students in the state. We compared each school's math and reading proficiency rates for disadvantaged students with the statewide results for these student groups and then selected schools that were performing better than this state average.
• Step 3: Schools that made it through the first two steps became eligible to be judged nationally on the final step—college-readiness performance—using Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate test data as the benchmarks for success, depending on which program was largest at the school. AP is a College Board program that offers college-level courses at high schools across the country. The International Baccalaureate program also offers a college-level curriculum.

The important news -- the student/teacher ratio for a majority of these high performing high schools appears to be 16:1 or 17:1 (with some 7:1 or 14:1 or even 26:1 or 28:1).  Let's be more critical of this simple ratio -- it reports the total number of students with the total number of teachers.  In our schools, we have many teachers not in classrooms with students, but they are part of this statistic. Really a national average of 16:1?  I do not know who is/is not counted, but I know our actual class size is considerably larger than 16:1.   If we use this statistic at face value, seems the schools with this lower ratio typically rank higher.  Once again -- I advocate that the less kids at a time we teach, the more effective we can meet their needs (whether remediation or acceleration).  

Here is the link if you want to explore (shame on you too :D):  U.S. News: Nation's Top High Schools

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.

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.

Educa 2012 - National Training Conf for Teachers

I attended a national teachers' conference on Friday. There were numerous vendors represented and a variety of sessions for teachers to attend. There was even an "international strand" of sessions in English. One of the interesting sessions I attended was lead by Susan Hopgood, President of Education International.

Ms. Hopgood listed many industrialized nations' primary policies to address the concerns of education through privatization (voucher systems, charter schools, and the shift of funds from public schools to private schools). As she added, Finland probably has not heard of performance management, standardized testing, school ranking, ranking of students, incentivizing teachers with bonus (merit) pay, competition between schools, and restricting entry to some schools. This raised a red flag for me because Chicago has tried most of the strategies on her list. For those that do not know reading this...Finland has been deliberate, transparent, and successful implementing a system with policies to ensure quality education for all and thus, has not done the aforementioned policies.

Ironically, as Ms. Hopgood stated, the data shows internationally these referenced policies have actually resulted in the narrowing of the curriculum and less student learning. Countries need to take a closer look at how Finland has been able to provide a quality education for all and lift both the preparation and the prestige of teachers.

It seems to me that nations, including the U.S., choose these policies for either their perceived expediency or less use of public funds or both. We keep choosing these quick, sometimes radical approaches, that are not building the capacity of teachers nor the learning of kids.