Homework amount? The real question is its value.

I have read many articles lately on the amount of homework students are getting today, is it more or less, etc.  Are students over-worked, under-worked?  I don't know the answer to the questions of amount - whether it is more or less, or if it is too much, but the question of the value of homework keeps popping up in my head.

A lot of what I am reading is connecting rigor and homework amount together, more homework is more rigor.  And the question I have is this: does homework make better learners, better students who are more prepared for college and career?  This is the question that I try and remember to ask with each assignment I give.

Is the homework creating a student more prepared for the future, not for the next big power test, but does it support my vision of a person who can problem solve, learn and understand/deal with situations.

I feel like when I started teaching my first instinct was to assign homework because that is what you did, how else can students learn.  But the longer I teach the less homework I assign and it is simply because now I ask myself - how does work make the student stronger, better.

Assigning the homework to be "forward-moving" for the student, making him/her more ready for the next step beyond high school is my only goal.  For me that means a blend of practice, problem solving and justifying - perhaps not every assign gets all three of those things, but when I think about what I assign over the course of month or quarter I think I am getting a decent blend of the three.

In the end - I do my best not to assign busy work, I try real hard to assign work of value.  And my plan is not to stop asking "Is this of value?" when making homework assignments.

Students first or testing first?

So where is the line between data and over-testing?  Rigor and rote-drones?  Accountability and test craziness?

The new WKCE cut scores literally took schools in Wisconsin from approximately 75% passing to 45% passing.  In my district our 'math mission' is to have all my 12th grade graduates ready for "College & Career" readiness in math.  Meaning that if they go to college they can start with a college credit course.  Then the scores change and we went from feeling like we were accomplishing our mission to the feeling that the goal had changed and we are left wondering does the new test prove anything?

When you have really small class sizes word of mouth will get you the results you search for, I always ask my students after graduation for their math placement and results.  Nearly all reply about their placements; and while there is an epidemic with remedial college math, pushing 40% of students, we have been less than 10% the past 3 years.  Isn't  that the goal?  And the students who go to technical colleges are passing their placement test nearly 100% of the time (compass test). 

So as with most things we need to ask ourselves does the current high stakes testing lead to our desired results.  Are the standards and core creating the students we need to be successful in the world?  The Common core is 200+ standards, how many of those are really needed?  Does Cramer's rule really create a better student, or is the only place to show that is an Advanced math course (not Algebra II or lower)? 

Would just a little money in post high school surveying be more useful - I am not really sure but lets face it - teachers work for the students, we're customer service.  But we do NOT work for the current 16 year old, but the 27 year old student.  (I joke that the student's future self called and begged me to be tougher so they could become better problem solvers and get better jobs, thus more money.)  And the new standards and testing does seem to be making a better 27 year old.