So how do you select curriculum in a small district? Form a committee? There is only a few of us in the entire district (Grades: 4K-5, MS, HS, Admin -- ~7 to 8 of us). So as the HS teacher, the only HS teacher it feel likes it starts with me. So like any other school you ask for books and start searching through them, and finding what?
I hope for the book that helps our school make the students better problem solvers and learners, ready for whatever they do upon graduation. And I am constantly thinking about what that should look like in a textbook. How does that text book progress from Kindergarten to Calculus? (or 4K versus Kindergarten)
I am feeling like I am searching for the holy grail, I need the theme song to Indiana Jones just to survive it. I am sent books that are over a 1000 pages long (1300 pages/180 days --- 7.2 pages per day -- CRAZY!) -- I know that I don't have to teach the whole book - but we (the students and I) get to carry them around all the same.
I have looked at integrated and non-integrated, CCSS aligned, ACT College and Career Readiness models..... And it leads me to one common belief, it is what we do in the room, not which book we have that matters most.
It is how we make sure they understand concepts versus procedures. It how we lead them in problems solving, encouraging/modeling persistence.
The curriculum is not that important, the teaching is... except....
Except I really need the text book series to have assessments and workbooks - because with so many different preps there is no time to make everything I need. (Which is why I am scared of CPM, great book - but I don't feel I can prep for it, not enough hours in the day). I currently make a lot of my own assessments with projects, but sometimes I need to use book assessment or worksheet as a base for a class (then just add a question or two, cross one off, etc). This modification process is what keeps me sane (or at my present level of insanity).
So as a small district searching for texts you would figure someone would have made good assessments that use high level skills and practices -- cause big or small we all want that resource. You wish for assessments that would be awesome (I mean they are written by the authors!), But often they are the same "pump & dump" - little different than the 10 plus year old texts I have -- except they cost $100 each.
Perhaps I want too much, but I will keep combing the desert in search of that text book series that matches my school's vision.
Showing posts with label CCSS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CCSS. Show all posts
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Saturday, August 2, 2014
CCSS in jeopardy in Wisconsin
So Scott Walker has called on the legislature to repeal the CCSS, and put in its place our own rigorous standards, "set by the people of Wisconsin." A politcal move - perhaps/surely, a move for the good of education - doubtful, a move we should make - I don't think so.
To be clear I am not a CCSS fan - there are too many standards in high school and we drive down too much math too soon in middle school. We are not training teachers properly and it is causing problems. But....
We need to realize, that Wisconsin is not single nation but a state in this nation which is a collection of states that make a republic, a democracy. And it is the populate that makes that democracy - an educated populate.
And we, the teachers in all states, need to have a guideline that we run to - that is the CCSS. Now am I hoping for version 2.0 (we should have 2.0 done already and should be looking for 3.0). But just calling on Wisconsin to remove themselves from the CCSS is not the solution -- we have made 3 years of investment, we should be tweaking - not throwing it out.
Personally - it is hardest for me when I get the emails saying "see, another program started and not finished." And they may be correct. Heck, we did not even get to testing (not that standardized tests prove anything).
And here we are quickly moving down the path of making the ROD teachers correct (ROD = Retired-On-Duty). The "We have seen this before" gang - no need to change it will go away. No need to use data or worry about improving. [Lucky my school is void of RODs]
It is a sad for education, it is sad for our political system -- we are making children's education a pawn of politics. We need to stop having new documents and programs and just have continous improvement on what is there. We need standards - but they should be living - not cut in stone.
But here we go again...
http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-calls-on-legislature-to-repeal-common-core-in/article_1db9265d-2257-5a43-9603-3e3d73b1c3a7.html
To be clear I am not a CCSS fan - there are too many standards in high school and we drive down too much math too soon in middle school. We are not training teachers properly and it is causing problems. But....
We need to realize, that Wisconsin is not single nation but a state in this nation which is a collection of states that make a republic, a democracy. And it is the populate that makes that democracy - an educated populate.
And we, the teachers in all states, need to have a guideline that we run to - that is the CCSS. Now am I hoping for version 2.0 (we should have 2.0 done already and should be looking for 3.0). But just calling on Wisconsin to remove themselves from the CCSS is not the solution -- we have made 3 years of investment, we should be tweaking - not throwing it out.
Personally - it is hardest for me when I get the emails saying "see, another program started and not finished." And they may be correct. Heck, we did not even get to testing (not that standardized tests prove anything).
And here we are quickly moving down the path of making the ROD teachers correct (ROD = Retired-On-Duty). The "We have seen this before" gang - no need to change it will go away. No need to use data or worry about improving. [Lucky my school is void of RODs]
It is a sad for education, it is sad for our political system -- we are making children's education a pawn of politics. We need to stop having new documents and programs and just have continous improvement on what is there. We need standards - but they should be living - not cut in stone.
But here we go again...
http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-calls-on-legislature-to-repeal-common-core-in/article_1db9265d-2257-5a43-9603-3e3d73b1c3a7.html
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Open Letter to the Wisconsin Committee Taking Comments on the CCSS
To the Select Committee reviewing the CCSS in Wisconsin:
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I am a father of 3 children (13,12 & 10 years old) and a second-career teacher just starting my eighth year of teaching High School math. I spent my first dozen years of my career as an engineer and manager in the private sector, which gives me a different view of the standards. As a nation we must embrace the ideal of making students who are college and career ready, and while the CCSS are not perfect, they are a step in the right direction.
I have spent the last few years working with the CCSS in mathematics and have formed some solid opinions:
1) Being from industry I knew some states' graduates were not as strong as others, some sort of national guideline is most likely needed. Many countries that we trail in education have a national set of standards. And anytime a small group forms a large set of standards there will be problems and complaints - as a nation we need to work together to move forward.
2) The core in math is strong K-6 but in my opinion simply has too many standards in High School, thus these individual standards take precious time from class room teachers to teach problem solving, deeper discovery, reasonsing, etc (the mathematical practices). But the practices are a strength of the CCSS which can be built upon and the standards will need to evolve.
3) We try to move too fast in education (the CCSS being a great example of too fast). We should move on a continuous improvement path; yet education moves with an all or nothing mentality. That is why the testing in 2014-2015 will be disastrous, we are trying to be 20% better in 2 years versus 2% better year after year. Whether the CCSS can survive the poltical "firestorm" that is coming (or is here) is an unanswered question.
And finally, 4) The standards are plenty rigorous and we need to focus on the practices in the CCSS.
As a parent and educator I worry about the CCSS being a list of standards to check off, and since the list is long deeming it rigorous. I worry about the politics and the desire for instant results derailing the opportunity for there to be true progress with the CCSS. I do not believe the CCSS are perfect, far from it, but it is a decent starting point.
And the CCSS should be a starting point for Wisconsin. While I feel the HS math standards are overloaded on topics, I think they provide a framework that can be used to move Wisconsin and the nation forward in education. It is the practices we should be focusing on - problem solving, tenacity, the ability to read, justify and revise. And that is why the CCSS should not be dismantled but allowed to evolve, I do believe the mathematical practices to be the strength of the CCSS.
In the end I support the CCSS with its flaws, because I view it as a first step in a continuous improvement process. We need national standards, and I feel the practices are good. I am hoping that as time passes we can correct some of the "mile wide, inch deep" issues and in the end have better students who are ready for college and career.
Scott Anderson
Math Instructor
Juda High School
Juda, Wisconsin
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I am a father of 3 children (13,12 & 10 years old) and a second-career teacher just starting my eighth year of teaching High School math. I spent my first dozen years of my career as an engineer and manager in the private sector, which gives me a different view of the standards. As a nation we must embrace the ideal of making students who are college and career ready, and while the CCSS are not perfect, they are a step in the right direction.
I have spent the last few years working with the CCSS in mathematics and have formed some solid opinions:
1) Being from industry I knew some states' graduates were not as strong as others, some sort of national guideline is most likely needed. Many countries that we trail in education have a national set of standards. And anytime a small group forms a large set of standards there will be problems and complaints - as a nation we need to work together to move forward.
2) The core in math is strong K-6 but in my opinion simply has too many standards in High School, thus these individual standards take precious time from class room teachers to teach problem solving, deeper discovery, reasonsing, etc (the mathematical practices). But the practices are a strength of the CCSS which can be built upon and the standards will need to evolve.
3) We try to move too fast in education (the CCSS being a great example of too fast). We should move on a continuous improvement path; yet education moves with an all or nothing mentality. That is why the testing in 2014-2015 will be disastrous, we are trying to be 20% better in 2 years versus 2% better year after year. Whether the CCSS can survive the poltical "firestorm" that is coming (or is here) is an unanswered question.
And finally, 4) The standards are plenty rigorous and we need to focus on the practices in the CCSS.
As a parent and educator I worry about the CCSS being a list of standards to check off, and since the list is long deeming it rigorous. I worry about the politics and the desire for instant results derailing the opportunity for there to be true progress with the CCSS. I do not believe the CCSS are perfect, far from it, but it is a decent starting point.
And the CCSS should be a starting point for Wisconsin. While I feel the HS math standards are overloaded on topics, I think they provide a framework that can be used to move Wisconsin and the nation forward in education. It is the practices we should be focusing on - problem solving, tenacity, the ability to read, justify and revise. And that is why the CCSS should not be dismantled but allowed to evolve, I do believe the mathematical practices to be the strength of the CCSS.
In the end I support the CCSS with its flaws, because I view it as a first step in a continuous improvement process. We need national standards, and I feel the practices are good. I am hoping that as time passes we can correct some of the "mile wide, inch deep" issues and in the end have better students who are ready for college and career.
Scott Anderson
Math Instructor
Juda High School
Juda, Wisconsin
Friday, October 11, 2013
Changing - The goal is to be better.
We are in the middle of a shift or moving towards the extreme end of a pendulum swing currently with the Common Core Standards. We can already see people now moving against the core and I don't think it is bad or good - it is too much too fast. And that is the problem with education - lets be great tomorrow - students must get there and be great - immediately. But my goal has never changed in my eight years of education since I came from private industry - I simply want to be slightly better tomorrow than I was today.
Personally I have worked hard at making my curriculum "college and career ready" - using the ACT as my guide (an Aligned by Design mentality). It is the test that about half my students need to do well on and does indicate whether they are ready for college math or not.
I started this mission on college readiness in 2010 following a conference (another subject another time). And the mission was simple and small, to start reducing the percentage of students taking remedial math in college. My mission, now three years later, is for all my Algebra 2 students to test into credit math at college or tech school, which is something education currently struggles with - somewhere from 33-40% test into remedial, non-credit college, math. I have had success in this by making my students accountable for all math - at all times. So Algebra 1's grade is 50% pass material, Geometry is 50% Algebra, Algebra 2 is 50% Geometry and so forth. We don't take time on the material but simply use recursive assessments to make sure students use it enough not to lose it. I think of it as two, 15 minute power review sessions during the week -- except the review session is just a quiz. But the important thing is, it is one small thing to be just a little bit better tomorrow than today.
Either way, no matter what I do or how I do it - I just want my students to be better than yesterday. Just to progress daily - 2% improvement year after year is the goal. By doing that I have had success, so my question is not what is the next big thing I am doing - but what is the next small thing. The large pendulum swings just does not work.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Does math homework work? (Really work?)
Practice is a key for learning math. I don't believe there is much argument with that in the math world. Some people need a little practice, some more - but how that practice is done, when, etc is a really big difference between math teachers. The carrots and sticks we use, I wonder if we think about that often enough. When is homework effective, how much should we give and on what topics? To really discuss homework, we have to think about what our goal is mathematically.
My goal is not the Common Core, I run to its standards but my goal is to have students ready for college credit math, and have the ability to do math in a problem solving context for the world. They need to a toolbox of skills but also the ability to handle problems including finance, research and justification. So homework is for building the toolbox and using the tools for problem solving & revision.
And since I accept that homework is to reinforce previous knowledge versus to learn new things or to work on projects - I use homework differently. To start with I do not assign current material - because I need conceptual understanding before I let a student work on it alone. And if that is the case why take precious class time reviewing it? Secondly the projects I assign, starting every October for the remaining part of the year, are big multiple revision, multiple solution exercises. This two prong approach meets my philosophy and the goal I have for my students.
My class periods are for working and gaining understanding on topics that may too difficult for homework. And remember everyone once struggled with 2*6, meaning there is time where it is hard, a time where it can be practice with guidance and time it can simply be reviewed in homework.
That thought process leads me to provide all solutions to daily practice homework - they need to do the work. but the students need to know they are doing it correctly. It has also lead me to using computer programs for practice - I use Khan mostly - because it is free. It is also fights the number one problem - just doing anything to finish.
I was one of "those" students back in the day - I either copied, wrote just answers, used old homework assignments (just change the section number on the top), or just did not do the homework. It may have slowed my progress but like most 16 year old students I did not care. How many students that age really think that math is important? Especially the context-less math that usually gets assigned.
So as we assign the homework - that you know the A/B students will do it just for the assessments (the tests) and that the C students are copying and that the rest are not doing - is it really working? What is it for? Are those low B students on-down really ready for the world and college?
Does your math homework make sense? It is a question I continually ask myself.
My goal is not the Common Core, I run to its standards but my goal is to have students ready for college credit math, and have the ability to do math in a problem solving context for the world. They need to a toolbox of skills but also the ability to handle problems including finance, research and justification. So homework is for building the toolbox and using the tools for problem solving & revision.
And since I accept that homework is to reinforce previous knowledge versus to learn new things or to work on projects - I use homework differently. To start with I do not assign current material - because I need conceptual understanding before I let a student work on it alone. And if that is the case why take precious class time reviewing it? Secondly the projects I assign, starting every October for the remaining part of the year, are big multiple revision, multiple solution exercises. This two prong approach meets my philosophy and the goal I have for my students.
My class periods are for working and gaining understanding on topics that may too difficult for homework. And remember everyone once struggled with 2*6, meaning there is time where it is hard, a time where it can be practice with guidance and time it can simply be reviewed in homework.
That thought process leads me to provide all solutions to daily practice homework - they need to do the work. but the students need to know they are doing it correctly. It has also lead me to using computer programs for practice - I use Khan mostly - because it is free. It is also fights the number one problem - just doing anything to finish.
I was one of "those" students back in the day - I either copied, wrote just answers, used old homework assignments (just change the section number on the top), or just did not do the homework. It may have slowed my progress but like most 16 year old students I did not care. How many students that age really think that math is important? Especially the context-less math that usually gets assigned.
So as we assign the homework - that you know the A/B students will do it just for the assessments (the tests) and that the C students are copying and that the rest are not doing - is it really working? What is it for? Are those low B students on-down really ready for the world and college?
Does your math homework make sense? It is a question I continually ask myself.
Friday, July 5, 2013
New books, old books - they sure look the same
Lately I have looked at a lot of 6-12 textbooks and websites. And one thought keeps crossing my mind -- these are nearly the same as before. The only difference is the order of some things. So the CCSS has theoretically changed textbooks and teaching (or will) but in reality the books are the same. They are so utterly close to the previous books that I am having a hard time justifying buying new books at $90 per pop and I am probably going to buy one edition back, used texts for $10 each. Cause the books are not different enough to help a teacher who is unsure of himself/herself with math and the CCSS.
And isn't that the real statement - a book cannot lead a weak teacher; I don't care what book I have, I typically use 2-3 in each of my courses. I teach conceptually using a combo of large projects, daily practice and non-negotiable skills -- the book is not my math bible, it is a nice guide. But for teachers that use a textbook as a bible, the current selection will not change their teaching and won't make the CCSS anymore achieveable than the last edition. I am not sure any textbook can.
As an ending comment lets just say publishers have not found the holy grail for the CCSS based on the books I have reviewed.
And isn't that the real statement - a book cannot lead a weak teacher; I don't care what book I have, I typically use 2-3 in each of my courses. I teach conceptually using a combo of large projects, daily practice and non-negotiable skills -- the book is not my math bible, it is a nice guide. But for teachers that use a textbook as a bible, the current selection will not change their teaching and won't make the CCSS anymore achieveable than the last edition. I am not sure any textbook can.
As an ending comment lets just say publishers have not found the holy grail for the CCSS based on the books I have reviewed.
Monday, February 11, 2013
College Professor Warning....
So my wife forward me an article with a retiring teacher 'apologizing' for the little drone test takers that K-12 education is creating:
A warning to college profs from a high school teacher
Overall I feel this retiring teacher's pain, but I do not accept his case that there is nothing that can be done, that the people at the top (who are woefully ignorant) control a teacher's classroom. Though I will admit, right now, that it is hard to not end up in a 'teach to the test' quandary.
I believe we educators must scream for reason. We must create the best students possible! Our end product is not measured on test, but a student's success 8 to 10 years after HS graduation! I know that the "high stakes testing/accountability" people are like a pillbox of machine guns, and our jobs as teachers is to attack that pillbox. While attacking we do not want to be carelessly mowed down, but to take on the enemy and do what is best. When we get results from our students, they will test ok - even when we don't cover everything - so long as we create problem solvers and life-long learners. We must plan the best curriculum, knowing the end goal, and make sure we are continuously improving (a concept I often used in my past career).
I also have the advantage of being the only math teacher in district, having control of the K-12 curriculum and having the school board and administration's trust that we are doing the "right" things. Meaning I teach the skills they need for college/career, and let the test scores handle themselves. I do agreed that if a teacher is not reflective it is easy to feel the pressure of tests and perhaps teach to it.
As a math teacher I do set aside about 20% of my class time to skills, I believe students need numeracy and recursive practice to maintain previous mastered concepts/skills. But I do not teach to the test, and when I talk to neighboring math teachers I almost always find myself doing less topics or lessons - and usually having better test results. That is a result of doing what is right for the students conceptually, creating problem solvers with a solid toolbox of math skills.
So the battle is here, let them test, but when we look at the skills, concepts and traits our students need let us not use the test as a curriculum guide but let us use our end product (a successful student a decade after HS graduation). Let us not accept creating drones, let's attack the pillbox, be student centered and do what is right.
A warning to college profs from a high school teacher
Overall I feel this retiring teacher's pain, but I do not accept his case that there is nothing that can be done, that the people at the top (who are woefully ignorant) control a teacher's classroom. Though I will admit, right now, that it is hard to not end up in a 'teach to the test' quandary.
I believe we educators must scream for reason. We must create the best students possible! Our end product is not measured on test, but a student's success 8 to 10 years after HS graduation! I know that the "high stakes testing/accountability" people are like a pillbox of machine guns, and our jobs as teachers is to attack that pillbox. While attacking we do not want to be carelessly mowed down, but to take on the enemy and do what is best. When we get results from our students, they will test ok - even when we don't cover everything - so long as we create problem solvers and life-long learners. We must plan the best curriculum, knowing the end goal, and make sure we are continuously improving (a concept I often used in my past career).
I also have the advantage of being the only math teacher in district, having control of the K-12 curriculum and having the school board and administration's trust that we are doing the "right" things. Meaning I teach the skills they need for college/career, and let the test scores handle themselves. I do agreed that if a teacher is not reflective it is easy to feel the pressure of tests and perhaps teach to it.
As a math teacher I do set aside about 20% of my class time to skills, I believe students need numeracy and recursive practice to maintain previous mastered concepts/skills. But I do not teach to the test, and when I talk to neighboring math teachers I almost always find myself doing less topics or lessons - and usually having better test results. That is a result of doing what is right for the students conceptually, creating problem solvers with a solid toolbox of math skills.
So the battle is here, let them test, but when we look at the skills, concepts and traits our students need let us not use the test as a curriculum guide but let us use our end product (a successful student a decade after HS graduation). Let us not accept creating drones, let's attack the pillbox, be student centered and do what is right.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Results oriented
So what is my goal with my math students? That is the question I am addressing, it is my "over-arching" question as I review the first half of the year and think about the remaining year & more importantly future years. Am I trying to create little mathematicians/engineers (no), am I trying to create drones (no), I am trying to give them the problem solving skills they need to succeed in the world. I ask this "goal" question as I pull together ACT data from the last 2 tests and measure my students (thus myself). The real challenge is tying the ACT to the CCSS to the skills really needed by my students.
The ACT is just a measurement made popular by colleges, but it does provide insight. Making my students unafraid of problems with numbers that require thought and processing is my goal, the ACT does not measure that well at all. But it does check the basic skills, it does indicate whether they are ready for college and/or career. The skills/material we learn is just the tools we need for problem solving (now and later). So as I enjoy my time off and lie around getting healthy (I was sick nearly all of December - 18 straight days of misery) I think about the CCSS (Common Core Standards), how it ties to the ACT and I wonder why there are so many standards in the CCSS. An example may help....
I was talking with another local math teacher at a basketball game and she asked if I was still not teaching matrices in Algebra 2, and I am not. The reason is if I put in big mathematical problems with processes there simply in not enough time to do it all. I have no problem pushing matrices out of Algebra 2 into Pre-Calculus (I teach matrices in Pre-Calc in May - thus you see how little value I believe they have), Some students need them for college but it is something that can easily be picked up at college and I use that Algebra 2 time for problem solving and being really good at the Algebra/Geometry. Maybe in the future more Algebra will go from grade 8/9 to 7/8 then 6/7/8 & allow time for more topics, but right now there is no time for matrices.
I judge myself (and my students) if they are ready for college level math (not remedial) and/or career. I judge myself (and my students) on whether they know the basics conceptually and understand that effort/studying is the key to math success (not math IQ). But I learned one thing in my previous career you need measurements.
Data is the key to knowing where you are and where you are going, running by gut feel is the worst thing - so I track a few stats. I track scores on the recursive quizzes I give, I track the ACT scores (it is what students need to do well on), and I track, what I believe may be most important, post HS data to really judge my students. My post HS data is math placement and first math course success in college (that is the best part of a small school - tracking 20 out of 30 students is easy). Funny thing is most schools that I have spoken with don't track post HS success -- but heck I view that as my true end-product. I am unsure how the CCSS should be tracked, I am waiting (with baited breath) for the Smarter-Balanced exam and see the data it provides.
All the success, failure, tears, etc don't matter if I create a student who cannot handle the next challenge. I continually chant that the students want me to be hard, so they struggle & learn with me, versus struggling later in college or career. But how does this all this tie to the CCSS and its practices? That is the question I cannot quite answer yet.
So as I pull together my ACT numbers I see many successes. Our trend is great, our scores are good, but there are still students on the fringe and those are the ones that I will try and set up systems to help. My favorite discovery is my D students can do math -- and that is important key -- if they can pass they have the basic skills and thus can succeed - otherwise they should stay for more instruction (so my line in the sand seems correct for passing/repeating students). The data lends to the idea that grades are timed-based thus not a great indication of ability. A student who does poorly in my Algebra class does not escape it in Geometry, they continue to practice and do quizzes through-out Geometry on Algebra topics. That allows the student who need more time to get it, it also makes sure the rest remember it. And it seems to work, my Juniors/Seniors do well compared to the rest of the country (where 5 years ago they were slightly below the rest of the country).
So I have found some success with recursive quizzes bi-weekly on previous topics that were taught conceptually. I have found a gap in my measurements and the CCSS, which I am unsure on how to bridge. I have found that while the CCSS spells out lots of good things, but it fails to point out the great, which as a small school teacher makes deconstructing them a priority with all my free time with 7 preps! Yet I know this is a slow progression, just like in business, the CCSS cannot be achieved over-night, and I will continue to track data, ask the big questions, and push for 3-5% improvement per year -- which is results oriented!
The ACT is just a measurement made popular by colleges, but it does provide insight. Making my students unafraid of problems with numbers that require thought and processing is my goal, the ACT does not measure that well at all. But it does check the basic skills, it does indicate whether they are ready for college and/or career. The skills/material we learn is just the tools we need for problem solving (now and later). So as I enjoy my time off and lie around getting healthy (I was sick nearly all of December - 18 straight days of misery) I think about the CCSS (Common Core Standards), how it ties to the ACT and I wonder why there are so many standards in the CCSS. An example may help....
I was talking with another local math teacher at a basketball game and she asked if I was still not teaching matrices in Algebra 2, and I am not. The reason is if I put in big mathematical problems with processes there simply in not enough time to do it all. I have no problem pushing matrices out of Algebra 2 into Pre-Calculus (I teach matrices in Pre-Calc in May - thus you see how little value I believe they have), Some students need them for college but it is something that can easily be picked up at college and I use that Algebra 2 time for problem solving and being really good at the Algebra/Geometry. Maybe in the future more Algebra will go from grade 8/9 to 7/8 then 6/7/8 & allow time for more topics, but right now there is no time for matrices.
I judge myself (and my students) if they are ready for college level math (not remedial) and/or career. I judge myself (and my students) on whether they know the basics conceptually and understand that effort/studying is the key to math success (not math IQ). But I learned one thing in my previous career you need measurements.
Data is the key to knowing where you are and where you are going, running by gut feel is the worst thing - so I track a few stats. I track scores on the recursive quizzes I give, I track the ACT scores (it is what students need to do well on), and I track, what I believe may be most important, post HS data to really judge my students. My post HS data is math placement and first math course success in college (that is the best part of a small school - tracking 20 out of 30 students is easy). Funny thing is most schools that I have spoken with don't track post HS success -- but heck I view that as my true end-product. I am unsure how the CCSS should be tracked, I am waiting (with baited breath) for the Smarter-Balanced exam and see the data it provides.
All the success, failure, tears, etc don't matter if I create a student who cannot handle the next challenge. I continually chant that the students want me to be hard, so they struggle & learn with me, versus struggling later in college or career. But how does this all this tie to the CCSS and its practices? That is the question I cannot quite answer yet.
So as I pull together my ACT numbers I see many successes. Our trend is great, our scores are good, but there are still students on the fringe and those are the ones that I will try and set up systems to help. My favorite discovery is my D students can do math -- and that is important key -- if they can pass they have the basic skills and thus can succeed - otherwise they should stay for more instruction (so my line in the sand seems correct for passing/repeating students). The data lends to the idea that grades are timed-based thus not a great indication of ability. A student who does poorly in my Algebra class does not escape it in Geometry, they continue to practice and do quizzes through-out Geometry on Algebra topics. That allows the student who need more time to get it, it also makes sure the rest remember it. And it seems to work, my Juniors/Seniors do well compared to the rest of the country (where 5 years ago they were slightly below the rest of the country).
So I have found some success with recursive quizzes bi-weekly on previous topics that were taught conceptually. I have found a gap in my measurements and the CCSS, which I am unsure on how to bridge. I have found that while the CCSS spells out lots of good things, but it fails to point out the great, which as a small school teacher makes deconstructing them a priority with all my free time with 7 preps! Yet I know this is a slow progression, just like in business, the CCSS cannot be achieved over-night, and I will continue to track data, ask the big questions, and push for 3-5% improvement per year -- which is results oriented!
Monday, October 29, 2012
Curriculum Mapping
So we had in-service this past week and used the time to work on curriculum mapping. Working on a plan to teach the Common Core Standards (CCSS) through out our K-12 building. Aligning what we are teaching/how we teach to the new national standards. It seems like time well spent because we finally found some software that allows a teacher to not only plan by unit and topic but also includes the ability to have learning targets (the daily "stuff" of teaching).
Thus curriculum mapping goes from an overall tool to a daily tool, so as I work on lessons I can build them there in the software (BYOC, is the software). I can store links, sheets, ideas all to a Learning topic (versus a unit). This then becomes a way for me to create plans that work by learning goals. I am excited because curriculum mapping at unit and topic level just becomes a way to say you checked against standards, the previous program we used did just unit and topic and I rarely looked at it. I was always too busy making lessons. Now I can make those lessons in the curriculum mapping software and then that can be looked at and refined the next year. These learning topics (the daily lessons) are tied to unit and topic with standards and makes me really focus on the standards. Tie that standard focus to the new mathematical practices and there is a framework to really become proficient at CCSS. My hope is to finally have a place to do continuous improvement on a lesson!
This hopefully will be the tool I use to tie daily teaching to lessons. My goal is to quickly rough in the topics/units into the software so I can really work on learning targets. Then I can decide the best way to teach concepts for understanding & high level thinking.
Is this "pie-in-the-sky?" Maybe... But at least the software has a way to look at it and have it be useful on daily basis.... Because the only way to get better is one lesson at a time....
Thus curriculum mapping goes from an overall tool to a daily tool, so as I work on lessons I can build them there in the software (BYOC, is the software). I can store links, sheets, ideas all to a Learning topic (versus a unit). This then becomes a way for me to create plans that work by learning goals. I am excited because curriculum mapping at unit and topic level just becomes a way to say you checked against standards, the previous program we used did just unit and topic and I rarely looked at it. I was always too busy making lessons. Now I can make those lessons in the curriculum mapping software and then that can be looked at and refined the next year. These learning topics (the daily lessons) are tied to unit and topic with standards and makes me really focus on the standards. Tie that standard focus to the new mathematical practices and there is a framework to really become proficient at CCSS. My hope is to finally have a place to do continuous improvement on a lesson!
This hopefully will be the tool I use to tie daily teaching to lessons. My goal is to quickly rough in the topics/units into the software so I can really work on learning targets. Then I can decide the best way to teach concepts for understanding & high level thinking.
Is this "pie-in-the-sky?" Maybe... But at least the software has a way to look at it and have it be useful on daily basis.... Because the only way to get better is one lesson at a time....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)