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 standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standards. Show all posts
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Curriculum & Standards - What is the mission? What is the right decision?
Had a good moment today! Had a parent pull me aside in a public place (not school) and thank me for helping their student with math. The student had just completed their math course required at college (college algebra). It was a student that struggled in all my math courses, a student who I demanded non-negotiable skills from.
The student struggled with grades - usually in the below average range, but I did not make the courses about a grade. We made it about the skills, the concepts, what the student would have to do at college. We quizzed, requizzed - worked at skills, would become frustrated and repeat. I spoke at length with the student prior to graduation that math at college was something that the student could do -- just find the proper math help -- tutors, help centers, etc. In the end the student got a C+ -- that is awesome!
It is times like this where I feel I have the curriculum balanced properly between how fast and how much mastery - because curriculum speed and mastery are not independent of one another. My Algebra 2 course - which is college prep - does not go as far as many other school's Algebra 2 courses. But the material we cover we know; we work hard at having a conceptual understanding of the items we do, and a mastery of the basics.
It means things like delaying the quadratic formula in favor of completing the square first. Doing Geometry proofs as a few weeks of enrichment versus a semester of memorization. About making each course a progression of the previous - including the course's grade. A Geometry grade at my school is about 50% Algebra 1 skills, an Algebra 2 grade is 50% Algebra 1 and Geometry skills. And so forth - except AP Calculus.
When I think about the trilogy of college prep courses - Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2 - I am mostly concerned that they learn how to problem solve, have a true mastery of basics skills, and have a tenacity to stick with things - to look for the how and why. I simply don't care if all the "standards" have been met, I don't care about a grade -- I want the team (student & I) to care about the big picture.
And the big picture is that we do the things to make students successful. Because I work for the student, not the 16 year old in my class, but the "future student" - the 23 year old student. The student who wants the skills, knowledge and tenacity to be successful in their life - that is my math mission, that is how I set up my math curriculum.
The student struggled with grades - usually in the below average range, but I did not make the courses about a grade. We made it about the skills, the concepts, what the student would have to do at college. We quizzed, requizzed - worked at skills, would become frustrated and repeat. I spoke at length with the student prior to graduation that math at college was something that the student could do -- just find the proper math help -- tutors, help centers, etc. In the end the student got a C+ -- that is awesome!
It is times like this where I feel I have the curriculum balanced properly between how fast and how much mastery - because curriculum speed and mastery are not independent of one another. My Algebra 2 course - which is college prep - does not go as far as many other school's Algebra 2 courses. But the material we cover we know; we work hard at having a conceptual understanding of the items we do, and a mastery of the basics.
It means things like delaying the quadratic formula in favor of completing the square first. Doing Geometry proofs as a few weeks of enrichment versus a semester of memorization. About making each course a progression of the previous - including the course's grade. A Geometry grade at my school is about 50% Algebra 1 skills, an Algebra 2 grade is 50% Algebra 1 and Geometry skills. And so forth - except AP Calculus.
When I think about the trilogy of college prep courses - Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2 - I am mostly concerned that they learn how to problem solve, have a true mastery of basics skills, and have a tenacity to stick with things - to look for the how and why. I simply don't care if all the "standards" have been met, I don't care about a grade -- I want the team (student & I) to care about the big picture.
And the big picture is that we do the things to make students successful. Because I work for the student, not the 16 year old in my class, but the "future student" - the 23 year old student. The student who wants the skills, knowledge and tenacity to be successful in their life - that is my math mission, that is how I set up my math curriculum.
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
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Skills required.... Not quadratic formula....
So prior to teaching I was an engineer and manager for about a decade. Then I started working on my masters in instruction to teach mathematics. I was 33 years old when I started, was successful, and could no longer do the quadratic formula from memory, because .... wait for it..... I did not need to. But I could do algebra on demand, could find the quadratic formula on google to get roots, and could use the math I knew to dig in and solve problems. The true reality of math required for being successful.
So as we start chasing the Common Core and its requirements we need to take pause and ask what is really needed. Math has natural beauty, it ties together processes and our world - that is what students need to see. They also need to be able to take large problems and rip through them looking for patterns and possibilities. Meaning they need to be good at Algebra, graphing and problem solving.
Yet I fear these skills are going to be considered low level by teachers looking at the core (get them done in 9th grade -- know 'em, then never forget them, which we know doesn't work). Most of the standards in High School are well above that, leading to my fear that the Core will scare teachers into showing everything, proceduralizing everything and developing a bunch of students who think math is just memorizing (an old school Biology course).
Worst yet, it will lead to a group of students who do not want to attack a math problem unless it fits into a little box they have seen... I see it often with students who transfer to my school, students who won't start a problem unless they know the "procedure" to finish. The problems we need to solve in our world are not this clean.
The Core will not produce problem solvers unless we look at our students and test them for true skills. Yet it remains to be seen it we are going to test well, or measure end results well... If we don't it will be another program with all the right thoughts and none of the right results.
So as we start chasing the Common Core and its requirements we need to take pause and ask what is really needed. Math has natural beauty, it ties together processes and our world - that is what students need to see. They also need to be able to take large problems and rip through them looking for patterns and possibilities. Meaning they need to be good at Algebra, graphing and problem solving.
Yet I fear these skills are going to be considered low level by teachers looking at the core (get them done in 9th grade -- know 'em, then never forget them, which we know doesn't work). Most of the standards in High School are well above that, leading to my fear that the Core will scare teachers into showing everything, proceduralizing everything and developing a bunch of students who think math is just memorizing (an old school Biology course).
Worst yet, it will lead to a group of students who do not want to attack a math problem unless it fits into a little box they have seen... I see it often with students who transfer to my school, students who won't start a problem unless they know the "procedure" to finish. The problems we need to solve in our world are not this clean.
The Core will not produce problem solvers unless we look at our students and test them for true skills. Yet it remains to be seen it we are going to test well, or measure end results well... If we don't it will be another program with all the right thoughts and none of the right results.
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)