Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
NJ - Math in Focus will replace EDM
Changes are ahead for math curriculum and instruction. Students in grades K-5 will have more time devoted to math this year, and the district will replace "Everyday Math" with the "Math in Focus" program. This change means that "spiraling" will be replaced by "mastery."
Rosetta Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, explained that mapping of the grades 6-12 curriculum began in spring. A goal is to increase algebra in all grades, across all levels. Two courses were adopted at CHS last month: Intro to Calculus, and Calculus/Intro to Linear Algebra.
A professional development goal asks teachers to become more "diagnostic" in their teaching, becoming "more adept at diagnosing what students are learning."
Math classrooms are expected to become more student-centered, with less teacher talk.
PSAT testing was instituted for last year's sophomore class. Their scores were used as part of the summer Step-Up classes.
Wilson noted that a goal is to help the community become more aware of what goes on in math classes. Open classes are being considered.
In grades K-5, the program Math in Focus is proposed for implementation next school year. It will replace Everyday Math in K-5. Everyday Math uses a "spiraling" approach to teaching, where a given topic is covered year after year, in more depth each time. Math in Focus, said Wilson, looks to "mastery," where students consider a topic for a longer period.
A professional goal, noted Wilson, is for teachers to build their math capacity, which allows them to teach skills more effectively.
Math instruction will increase to 90 minutes daily; 60 minutes of classwork and 30 minutes of independent work. This will replace some time spent in science and Social Studies, effective this year.
Jennifer Payne-Parrish encouraged Wilson to introduce curriculum changes at Back-to-School night; there are no formal plans to do so.
Andrea Wren-Hardin noted a concern that students will have less Social Studies and science instruction. Wilson acknowledged that those subjects have been "streamlined," with some units of study removed.
A further concern was students who weren't challenged previously, spending 60 minutes daily on math, will now see 90 minutes of the same. Wilson said this will be addressed in each classroom.
Overall, said Wilson, the district is going "for depth, not breadth" in rolling out changes to the math curriculum.
Rosetta Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, explained that mapping of the grades 6-12 curriculum began in spring. A goal is to increase algebra in all grades, across all levels. Two courses were adopted at CHS last month: Intro to Calculus, and Calculus/Intro to Linear Algebra.
A professional development goal asks teachers to become more "diagnostic" in their teaching, becoming "more adept at diagnosing what students are learning."
Math classrooms are expected to become more student-centered, with less teacher talk.
PSAT testing was instituted for last year's sophomore class. Their scores were used as part of the summer Step-Up classes.
Wilson noted that a goal is to help the community become more aware of what goes on in math classes. Open classes are being considered.
In grades K-5, the program Math in Focus is proposed for implementation next school year. It will replace Everyday Math in K-5. Everyday Math uses a "spiraling" approach to teaching, where a given topic is covered year after year, in more depth each time. Math in Focus, said Wilson, looks to "mastery," where students consider a topic for a longer period.
A professional goal, noted Wilson, is for teachers to build their math capacity, which allows them to teach skills more effectively.
Math instruction will increase to 90 minutes daily; 60 minutes of classwork and 30 minutes of independent work. This will replace some time spent in science and Social Studies, effective this year.
Jennifer Payne-Parrish encouraged Wilson to introduce curriculum changes at Back-to-School night; there are no formal plans to do so.
Andrea Wren-Hardin noted a concern that students will have less Social Studies and science instruction. Wilson acknowledged that those subjects have been "streamlined," with some units of study removed.
A further concern was students who weren't challenged previously, spending 60 minutes daily on math, will now see 90 minutes of the same. Wilson said this will be addressed in each classroom.
Overall, said Wilson, the district is going "for depth, not breadth" in rolling out changes to the math curriculum.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Attorney questions Portland's texbook adoption process....
Bill Nemitz: A textbook example of caring
Her daughter, who started kindergarten last week at Portland's Longfellow Elementary School, is still six years away from middle school.
So why was Anna Collins standing up there before the Portland school board late Tuesday evening, raising eyebrows with her questions about the city's brand-new middle school math curriculum?
"My kid is just starting this process. If I don't do something now, this is done -- and I will be on the hook," Collins said in an interview Wednesday. "I will be one of those parents who never participated. I will be one of those parents who didn't show up."
Instead, less than a week after she logged onto her computer and headed for Portland Public Schools' website, Collins has school administrators and board members alike squirming in their seats and wondering exactly who's in charge when it comes to what's going on in Portland's classrooms these days.
"We're very impressed with the quality of the work that she put into her dialogue with us," noted Superintendent Jim Morse. "It's certainly unique in my two years (in Portland) -- I've not seen anyone come forward on a curriculum issue in all the time I've been superintendent."
It all started on Sept. 8, when Collins dropped off her daughter for the first day of school and, that evening, stopped by for a meeting of the Longfellow Parent Teacher Organization.
She had what turned out to be an unusual request: Could someone provide her with a copy of the kindergarten curriculum so she'd know what her little girl was doing each day?
She might as well have been speaking Greek. Curriculum? Hmmm ... what curriculum?
"So I started educating myself," Collins said.
Collins, it should be noted, is a lawyer -- and an intelligent one at that.
A product of the public school system in Russia, where she was raised, she's long had a particular interest in what was referred to a decade ago as the "math wars" -- a philosophical battle between those who favored "traditional," memorization-based math instruction and those who preferred newer, "constructivist" strategies that focus more on real-life problem solving.
Collins, for the record, prefers a blending of the two, with early emphasis on the fundamentals. But back to her research.
"So I go online and start looking at every school in Portland to try and figure out what the math curriculum is," she recalled. "And I can't easily figure it out -- it's not readily available information." Eventually, she came across a letter to parents on the King Middle School website announcing that, as of this fall, Portland's three middle schools have adopted the so-called University of Chicago School Math Project curriculum.
"That was news to me -- on day three of my research," said Collins, who's not a big fan of that program because (unlike Superintendent Morse) she doesn't think it focuses enough on the basics.
Next, Collins went to the laws and policies governing how the school board does business. That's where she found this policy under "curriculum adoption":
"No course of study shall be eliminated or new courses added without an in-depth study and subsequent approval by the School Committee, nor shall any basic alteration or reduction of a course of study be made without such approval."
On Collins went to old school board minutes, where she found neither a vote by the board on the new math curriculum nor any indication that the public ever weighed in on it.
"This cannot happen in a vacuum," Collins said. "If it happens in a vacuum, parents have even less impetus to care."
Tuesday evening, at the end of a long agenda, the board finally reached its last item of business: "Board Focus on Educational Issues -- Middle School Math Curriculum."
There at the podium, all by herself, stood Collins.
She came prepared: Before the meeting, each board member got her bound, eight-page memo (with another 38 pages of attachments) in which Collins analyzed not just how the new curriculum came into being, but how in her view the board's own policies and procedures were either sidestepped or ignored along the way.
"There has been no vote to approve the Chicago math curriculum across the district for all middle schools," she wrote. "Instead, the school board has allowed the superintendent to choose the curriculum by purchasing and implementing a curriculum in the form of textbooks."
What's more, she later noted, "it appears that parents were not involved in the implementation process."
Morse, in an interview Wednesday, said the school board did in fact approve the Chicago math textbooks and other instructional materials in June, after an exhaustive in-house study by administrators and teachers.
The middle school math overhaul, he added, stemmed from his determination to adopt common curricula throughout the city's school system -- and get away from the "disjointed" teaching strategies that for years have differed from school to school (and, in some schools, from classroom to classroom). But what about the lack of a school board vote on the curriculum change itself, as required in the board's own policy?
"We do not believe the curriculum has changed. We believe that the program/textbook materials have changed," Morse replied.
Might others believe differently?
"That's what's going to be teased out at the school board level -- how we understand that together," he said.
That can't happen soon enough for several school board members who were contacted Thursday.
"I think we need a better public process to get at these decisions," said board member Jaimey Caron. "Having a process, regardless of who makes the final decision, I think helps with communication, it helps get information out that is critical to parents."
Kate Snyder, the board's chair, said a workshop was already scheduled for Tuesday, before Collins' arrival, to discuss the board's role in future curricular decisions.
And while she doesn't agree with all the conclusions in Collins' memo, Snyder said, "The timing is kind of perfect. . . . She made me think about some of the planning I'm doing as chair of the board in a way that will definitely improve the workshop on Tuesday -- it will help us find some of the clarity we need."
Board member Marnie Morrione, who wasn't even fully aware that "Chicago Math" is already up and running, said Collins' efforts already have had a "huge" impact on the board and the administration.
"It would be wonderful to have more citizens like her," said Morrione.
Which brings us back to Collins: Having clearly done her homework with the school board, might the mother of a kindergartner have a message for fellow parents?
Indeed.
"Wake up," Collins said. "Make a commitment to go to at least one school committee meeting each year. Just do it. It's not that hard. This is your child's education we're talking about."
Class dismissed.
Columnist Bill Nemitz can be contacted at 791-6323 or at:
bnemitz@mainetoday.com
Her daughter, who started kindergarten last week at Portland's Longfellow Elementary School, is still six years away from middle school.
So why was Anna Collins standing up there before the Portland school board late Tuesday evening, raising eyebrows with her questions about the city's brand-new middle school math curriculum?
"My kid is just starting this process. If I don't do something now, this is done -- and I will be on the hook," Collins said in an interview Wednesday. "I will be one of those parents who never participated. I will be one of those parents who didn't show up."
Instead, less than a week after she logged onto her computer and headed for Portland Public Schools' website, Collins has school administrators and board members alike squirming in their seats and wondering exactly who's in charge when it comes to what's going on in Portland's classrooms these days.
"We're very impressed with the quality of the work that she put into her dialogue with us," noted Superintendent Jim Morse. "It's certainly unique in my two years (in Portland) -- I've not seen anyone come forward on a curriculum issue in all the time I've been superintendent."
It all started on Sept. 8, when Collins dropped off her daughter for the first day of school and, that evening, stopped by for a meeting of the Longfellow Parent Teacher Organization.
She had what turned out to be an unusual request: Could someone provide her with a copy of the kindergarten curriculum so she'd know what her little girl was doing each day?
She might as well have been speaking Greek. Curriculum? Hmmm ... what curriculum?
"So I started educating myself," Collins said.
Collins, it should be noted, is a lawyer -- and an intelligent one at that.
A product of the public school system in Russia, where she was raised, she's long had a particular interest in what was referred to a decade ago as the "math wars" -- a philosophical battle between those who favored "traditional," memorization-based math instruction and those who preferred newer, "constructivist" strategies that focus more on real-life problem solving.
Collins, for the record, prefers a blending of the two, with early emphasis on the fundamentals. But back to her research.
"So I go online and start looking at every school in Portland to try and figure out what the math curriculum is," she recalled. "And I can't easily figure it out -- it's not readily available information." Eventually, she came across a letter to parents on the King Middle School website announcing that, as of this fall, Portland's three middle schools have adopted the so-called University of Chicago School Math Project curriculum.
"That was news to me -- on day three of my research," said Collins, who's not a big fan of that program because (unlike Superintendent Morse) she doesn't think it focuses enough on the basics.
Next, Collins went to the laws and policies governing how the school board does business. That's where she found this policy under "curriculum adoption":
"No course of study shall be eliminated or new courses added without an in-depth study and subsequent approval by the School Committee, nor shall any basic alteration or reduction of a course of study be made without such approval."
On Collins went to old school board minutes, where she found neither a vote by the board on the new math curriculum nor any indication that the public ever weighed in on it.
"This cannot happen in a vacuum," Collins said. "If it happens in a vacuum, parents have even less impetus to care."
Tuesday evening, at the end of a long agenda, the board finally reached its last item of business: "Board Focus on Educational Issues -- Middle School Math Curriculum."
There at the podium, all by herself, stood Collins.
She came prepared: Before the meeting, each board member got her bound, eight-page memo (with another 38 pages of attachments) in which Collins analyzed not just how the new curriculum came into being, but how in her view the board's own policies and procedures were either sidestepped or ignored along the way.
"There has been no vote to approve the Chicago math curriculum across the district for all middle schools," she wrote. "Instead, the school board has allowed the superintendent to choose the curriculum by purchasing and implementing a curriculum in the form of textbooks."
What's more, she later noted, "it appears that parents were not involved in the implementation process."
Morse, in an interview Wednesday, said the school board did in fact approve the Chicago math textbooks and other instructional materials in June, after an exhaustive in-house study by administrators and teachers.
The middle school math overhaul, he added, stemmed from his determination to adopt common curricula throughout the city's school system -- and get away from the "disjointed" teaching strategies that for years have differed from school to school (and, in some schools, from classroom to classroom). But what about the lack of a school board vote on the curriculum change itself, as required in the board's own policy?
"We do not believe the curriculum has changed. We believe that the program/textbook materials have changed," Morse replied.
Might others believe differently?
"That's what's going to be teased out at the school board level -- how we understand that together," he said.
That can't happen soon enough for several school board members who were contacted Thursday.
"I think we need a better public process to get at these decisions," said board member Jaimey Caron. "Having a process, regardless of who makes the final decision, I think helps with communication, it helps get information out that is critical to parents."
Kate Snyder, the board's chair, said a workshop was already scheduled for Tuesday, before Collins' arrival, to discuss the board's role in future curricular decisions.
And while she doesn't agree with all the conclusions in Collins' memo, Snyder said, "The timing is kind of perfect. . . . She made me think about some of the planning I'm doing as chair of the board in a way that will definitely improve the workshop on Tuesday -- it will help us find some of the clarity we need."
Board member Marnie Morrione, who wasn't even fully aware that "Chicago Math" is already up and running, said Collins' efforts already have had a "huge" impact on the board and the administration.
"It would be wonderful to have more citizens like her," said Morrione.
Which brings us back to Collins: Having clearly done her homework with the school board, might the mother of a kindergartner have a message for fellow parents?
Indeed.
"Wake up," Collins said. "Make a commitment to go to at least one school committee meeting each year. Just do it. It's not that hard. This is your child's education we're talking about."
Class dismissed.
Columnist Bill Nemitz can be contacted at 791-6323 or at:
bnemitz@mainetoday.com
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Scarborough (ME) selects Singapore Math
Schools take stock of new math program
Posted by Leader Editor at 9/1/2011 9:33 AM
Categories: uncategorized
By Dan Aceto
Staff Writer
Scarborough students in kindergarten to fifth grade can look forward to a new and engaging way to learn mathematics this year.
The Scarborough School Department now uses Math in Focus: The Singapore Approach. The new curriculum provides students with a balanced, research-based curriculum that emphasizes mastery and understanding of mathematical skills to develop critical and creative thinking, said Monique Culbertson, the department’s director of curriculum and assessment.
Culbertson said the program is an opportunity for students to develop mathematical skills that will lead them to greater success in life.
“We’re very excited about the potential here,” she said. “The national consultant who came in to work with teachers was impressed with the enthusiasm of math instruction and left feeling quite confident, saying we may be a demonstration site in the future. That kind of feedback is exciting and the credit goes to teachers for their energy and time preparing for a new curriculum.”
The new program, which has been in research and development for two years, places greater emphasis on “mastery” of mathematical skill sets before students move on to more challenging lessons said Culbertson.
“The content is not one of a spiraling curriculum where students keep repeating the same thing year after year,” Culbertson said. “The content is one where students’ focus in on a specific area to develop skill and proficiency. They are going to be getting more in-depth on topics because they will be working toward mastery of a skill.”
Like the previous math curriculum, Culbertson said skills will continually be reinforced and built upon, although the new program allows for a greater understanding of different skill sets such as multiplication, division, addition and subtraction. Teaching will involve class-led discussions, as well as independent study for individual students who are working on mastery of certain skill sets.
The framework of the curriculum centers around five core principles aimed at achieving mathematical problem solving: attitudes, meta-cognition, processes, concepts and skills.
The attitudes component deals with appreciation, interest, confidence and perseverance of mathematical topics. The meta-cognition component deals with monitoring ones own thinking.
The processes component deals with thinking skills and strategies. The concepts component deals with numerical, geometrical, algebraic and statistical concepts. The skills component deals with estimation approximate mental calculation, communication and use of mathematical tools, algebraic manipulation and data analysis, according to Culbertson.
The curriculum follows what is known as a concrete-pictorial-abstract progression, meaning that students will understand both how math works and why it does, Culbertson said.
Concrete concepts include physical items that aid in the assistance of learning math, such as building blocks, cubes, tiles, chips and other items. The pictorial component includes pictures, bar graphs and models, number bonds, diagrams, charts and other diagrams.
The abstract component deals with concepts such as numerals, mathematical notation and symbols, algorithms, estimation, predications and written and oral explanations.
Students also will use textbooks and technology resources to assist them in understanding concepts taught throughout the curriculum.
For Kathy Tirrell, math specialist at Scarborough Middle School, the program is eagerly anticipated.
“We’re really excited,” Tirrell said. “One of things that strikes me about it being a good fit is that it has problem solving embedded in the program, so students will be able to move from simple to complex problems, routine to non-routine problems and take their problem solving skills and apply it to new situations.”
“With the combination of problem solving and skills, kids can remember concepts when they go to concrete to pictorial to abstract, and understand why math works, not just how,” said Tirrell, who worked on the Curriculum Committee.
Culbertson said the new curriculum has been evaluated internationally and Singapore has consistently placed in the top three spots in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study during the past 12 years.
“Students using the curriculum tested significantly better than others,” Culbertson said. “This is a curriculum that has a track record.”
Posted by Leader Editor at 9/1/2011 9:33 AM
Categories: uncategorized
By Dan Aceto
Staff Writer
Scarborough students in kindergarten to fifth grade can look forward to a new and engaging way to learn mathematics this year.
The Scarborough School Department now uses Math in Focus: The Singapore Approach. The new curriculum provides students with a balanced, research-based curriculum that emphasizes mastery and understanding of mathematical skills to develop critical and creative thinking, said Monique Culbertson, the department’s director of curriculum and assessment.
Culbertson said the program is an opportunity for students to develop mathematical skills that will lead them to greater success in life.
“We’re very excited about the potential here,” she said. “The national consultant who came in to work with teachers was impressed with the enthusiasm of math instruction and left feeling quite confident, saying we may be a demonstration site in the future. That kind of feedback is exciting and the credit goes to teachers for their energy and time preparing for a new curriculum.”
The new program, which has been in research and development for two years, places greater emphasis on “mastery” of mathematical skill sets before students move on to more challenging lessons said Culbertson.
“The content is not one of a spiraling curriculum where students keep repeating the same thing year after year,” Culbertson said. “The content is one where students’ focus in on a specific area to develop skill and proficiency. They are going to be getting more in-depth on topics because they will be working toward mastery of a skill.”
Like the previous math curriculum, Culbertson said skills will continually be reinforced and built upon, although the new program allows for a greater understanding of different skill sets such as multiplication, division, addition and subtraction. Teaching will involve class-led discussions, as well as independent study for individual students who are working on mastery of certain skill sets.
The framework of the curriculum centers around five core principles aimed at achieving mathematical problem solving: attitudes, meta-cognition, processes, concepts and skills.
The attitudes component deals with appreciation, interest, confidence and perseverance of mathematical topics. The meta-cognition component deals with monitoring ones own thinking.
The processes component deals with thinking skills and strategies. The concepts component deals with numerical, geometrical, algebraic and statistical concepts. The skills component deals with estimation approximate mental calculation, communication and use of mathematical tools, algebraic manipulation and data analysis, according to Culbertson.
The curriculum follows what is known as a concrete-pictorial-abstract progression, meaning that students will understand both how math works and why it does, Culbertson said.
Concrete concepts include physical items that aid in the assistance of learning math, such as building blocks, cubes, tiles, chips and other items. The pictorial component includes pictures, bar graphs and models, number bonds, diagrams, charts and other diagrams.
The abstract component deals with concepts such as numerals, mathematical notation and symbols, algorithms, estimation, predications and written and oral explanations.
Students also will use textbooks and technology resources to assist them in understanding concepts taught throughout the curriculum.
For Kathy Tirrell, math specialist at Scarborough Middle School, the program is eagerly anticipated.
“We’re really excited,” Tirrell said. “One of things that strikes me about it being a good fit is that it has problem solving embedded in the program, so students will be able to move from simple to complex problems, routine to non-routine problems and take their problem solving skills and apply it to new situations.”
“With the combination of problem solving and skills, kids can remember concepts when they go to concrete to pictorial to abstract, and understand why math works, not just how,” said Tirrell, who worked on the Curriculum Committee.
Culbertson said the new curriculum has been evaluated internationally and Singapore has consistently placed in the top three spots in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study during the past 12 years.
“Students using the curriculum tested significantly better than others,” Culbertson said. “This is a curriculum that has a track record.”
Friday, August 26, 2011
Smart Teachers in Stupid Schools
Smart Teachers in Stupid Schools
By Christine D'Amico, MA Elementary Ed
I'm sitting in yet another meeting for staff development on the common core curriculum. This meeting is for Special Ed Teachers, the Special Ed supervisor for the district is talking about "hotspots" – "And one of the "hotspots" as you know, is that our students must tell us where they are academically and how they intend to move to the next level." I raised my eyebrows and made a face in her direction. "What?" she questioned, "We're all professionals here, and do you have something to add?" "Not really" I replied, "No, I insist, you obviously have something on your mind and we'd like to hear it." "Look" I stated firmly, "I don't know many adults who can tell you where they are academically and how they expect to get to the next level, no less children, no less special needs children! Now, the kids can tell you what they like to do and what they don't like to do, but to ask them to present their academic portfolio on the spot is simply not appropriate. The professionals in the classroom must discern and administer efficient methodologies to teach the kids and get them to the next levels; this should not be a concern of the students." We're seated in a big square table; the other teachers are all within my sight. As I look around seeking support, most remain mute not daring to question the status quo, only one strong dynamic teacher nods her head feverishly in agreement and asserts "Exactly!" "Well," maintains the supervisor, "This is what is coming down the pipe all our kids have to be 'proactive learners'." "Yes, well," I quipped, "it's simply not appropriate." "'Proactive learners'" I rolled my eyes thinking, "These people love to use phrases that have snappy ideals with little meaning in the classroom."
The conversation went on to other "hotspots" which made no reference to real scientifically based practices in the classroom, the pressures from above to conform to these requirements are thus thrust upon classroom teachers. Yet another meeting with lots of form and little function while newer teachers do not dare question authority for fear of reprisal and senior teachers object behind the backs of these supervisors - tired of ridiculous meetings promising lots of something delivering nothing. Thus the "Much Ado About Nothing" merry-go-round of pedagogy rolls on.
So how did we get here in our schools and what happens to teachers who really are innovative and question the status quo? First a little history of American Education - American education in the early 1900's was designed to teach students academics: phonics, reading, writing, math, American history, world history, world geography, American geography, science, grammar, art, art history, literature, poetry, students were taught directly and systematically and they were assigned memorization and recitation of important documents. Students in the early 1900's had a course load that was full and diverse. High school graduates during this time had a broad education which was well grounded in academics. There was no illiteracy problem because these students were taught to read phonetically. Their knowledge base was probably better than most college graduates today. Then, along came John Dewey, who said that schools needed to be more sensitive and progressive. "Schools should be places where we can build a new political order, teaching students to think critically and be open minded." This is progressive education. A new era emerged for education.
Teachers were then encouraged to forego academics and put more of a thrust on progressive paradigms such as working cooperatively and learning by exploration rather than rote. A new emphasis on bolstering self-esteem by changing the grading system emerged. New teaching models came into the classroom, out went the memorization of facts and phonics, in came a new pedagogy that was implicitly based called "Constructivism" - "We learn through exploration and we learn to read in the same way we learn to speak." This became the mantra of pedagogues. Group learning, group seating, grading with rubrics, collaboration, open classrooms, schools without walls, cooperative learning, multiage approaches, whole language, the social curriculum, experiential education, and numerous forms of alternative schools all have important philosophical roots in progressive education.
Though the progressive educators end goal for students has always been critical thinking and a highly educated diverse population, their methodologies lack rigor and scientific backing. Without phonics directly and systematically taught in our classrooms, illiteracy soared. First came the "Look-Say" method (remember Dick and Jane?) later came whole language, which outlawed phonics in any way, shape or form in the classroom. Illiteracy rates skyrocketed and though there has been some pushback from parents and educators, these trends remain in place. We are now down to basically teaching three subjects in school, reading, writing and math. The methods employed in the classroom are so inefficient that we have to spend lots of time on these disciplines. What could be taught efficiently in Kindergarten and First Grade is drawn out for years. We can't fit in other disciplines because our students can't handle the rigor. If you can't read, write and spell, you simply can't handle lots of other subjects.
In contrast, students who were educated in the early 1900's with traditional classrooms had many subjects and were able to handle a full course load. These graduates had more knowledge and were therefore better critical thinkers than those who are now subjected to progressive education. In fact, progressive pedagogy produces the exact opposite of its goal and in the face of science, which backs direct, systematic, rigorous instruction progressive educators remain married to their paradigms. Our schools are infiltrated and infected with this disease called progressive education, when in fact there is nothing progressive about it! The progressive model is backwards, it is not helping our students really acquire the knowledge they need to become strong, smart citizens and is forcing the entire system to crumble.
Progressive educators in universities (like Columbia Teachers College) sit around thinking up ways to create curriculum which orbits around their paradigms. College professors follow the curriculum without question; therefore new teachers are indoctrinated in these methods. These methods grab hold of schools and school districts like parasites and because we only have a precious few hours in school with our children, much of these time-wasting, inappropriate pedagogical approaches result in lower academic achievement in our students. These people experiment on our students and teachers with their poorly written curriculum. Many teachers who are under strict orders to use these time-wasting procedures are distraught that they cannot use scientifically based pedagogy in their classrooms.
Progressive educators would like to promote a more democratic society advocating greater equity, justice, diversity and other democratic values, yet their methodologies do just the opposite, with "Fuzzy Math" and "Whole Language" causing lesser privileged students who can't afford tutoring to fall way behind. NYC has 70% of its student population in this category. Imagine how devastating to the morale and sense of self-esteem the use of poor curriculums can have on a child's psyche. These students subjected to these methods grow to believe they can't do anything; they are labeled as special needs children and become distraught that they are not mentally capable of becoming educated. Many are just pushed through the system because there is no where else for them to go. Progressivism which is trying to enforce some kind of social agenda, rather than purely impart knowledge, is causing many students to fail and teachers to become distraught and despondent.
What do teachers who refuse to follow the leader do? Many shut their doors and pull out the curriculum they know works. I know of teachers who, when whole language is being implemented by the district, will use their phonics programs undercover. Teachers will set up look-outs in the hall to see if supervisors are coming and drill students in what to do should a supervisor show up. I have had my students open their "readers" and put in the phonics books I'm using inside. "If someone comes you take the book slide it in your desk and pretend you're reading." I've instructed.
In NYC, the high school teachers in one district staged a protest at the district office against the use of the Teachers College method in their classrooms. These teachers were told to conform to the method or else be punished. The UFT chapter leader who headed up this protest ended up in the Rubber Room with charges of insubordination. He was despondent, demoralized and depressed; worried that his very career would be ended. This brave leader persevered and was restored to his position in school with the charges dropped. The high school teachers won their battle and were told they could use their own methods in their classrooms.
One time during a summer school program, I brought my own personal reading kit (worth $2000) up four flights to my New York City classroom and bought all the kids their own workbooks at a cost of over $250. I did this because the summer school materials were so poorly written and so benign I knew they would not make a dent in the minds of these students who were already anywhere from two to five years behind in reading. In fact, the summer school materials were junk magazines created by some publisher who had a contract with the district. When the summer school district superintendent and principal came into my classroom to observe my students obviously using a multi-sensory method, singing phonics songs, spelling in groups, reading in groups and writing I was questioned, "Why aren't you using the mandated program?" "I would challenge you to think about your choice of curriculum for these students, these kids need a powerful program to get them up and running. I have always gotten high test scores with this program." Later behind closed doors, the principal sternly rebuked, "How dare you confront the superintendent in front of me!" And so it goes, smart teachers with smart innovative programs that actually are proven to work "get it". I was punished severely by that principal for speaking out, who wrote me up and even removed me from the classroom. Yet, my students outscored their peers that summer.
Another teacher who had gotten high test scores repeatedly using her method of spelling and vocabulary enhancement in her classroom was told not use her method as "spelling has nothing to do with reading." (which is a flat out lie)? So, she used the methods enforced by the district. When she was called into her supervisor who was questioning her test scores she said, "Well, I used your methods, I did exactly what you told me to do, so you can turn around and look in the mirror because that's the person who caused these low test scores." After that, she decided to leave the classroom and become a cluster teacher because, "There's just too much pressure on classroom teachers to do the wrong thing." Sometimes smart teachers can't take it anymore and just abandon ship.
In math, if the district brings in a fuzzy program, smart teachers buy their own books, use the programs they know work and close their doors. They speak out against the ridiculous choices made by the district and refuse to use their programs. Some teachers are disciplined for not following the requirements while others can get away with creating their own programs. I don't use the mandated math program in our school; it's the most confusing program I've ever seen. I look at the Core Knowledge requirements and follow it, creating a program for my Special Needs kids. After all, if the math program doesn't make sense to me, it won't make sense to First Graders! Common sense, please!
So, what is a really smart teacher? Smart teachers want to teach using scientifically sound curriculums that work and never fail, even the slowest learners. They want to use what we know about the brain and learning in their classroom curriculum. (Did you know that teachers are never taught brain science in their education training courses? Imagine and these are the people who are working with the brain all day long!) Innovative teachers want to access the entire brain using multisensory curriculums. These teachers want to empower their students with as much knowledge as possible. They look at the whole student, their home life, their diet, their support systems and they have compassion and love in their hearts for each one. Smart teachers encourage and expect the absolute best, yet they make things easy by using direct, systematic, explicit curriculum which clearly lays out expectations and produces measurable results. Smart educators want to learn about what works, these are teachers who will pay their way to conferences which enhance their own teaching so they can impart knowledge in the best most efficient manner in our schools. These are the teachers who will go the extra mile again and again to help their students succeed.
Too often people, especially within institutions, dig their heals in deep into their own paradigms whether correct or not, in order to protect their territory, their status quo, their own need to be right. In education and our schools this is a most egregious offense because, at stake, are the futures and lives of the children we serve. We can no longer afford to remain stoic in our mindsets, and although cloaked with lofty goals, the progressive educational movement in the United States has created a pedagogical mess, which must be untangled and common sense must prevail.
Smart teachers, who are bold and use common sense, must take a stand, and speak out against the common trends in academia to waste time and dumb down our classrooms. We want to produce bright students who have much knowledge and can think critically. You can't put the cart before the horse; the ability to think critically only comes with much knowledge and understanding of many disciplines. Smart teachers in stupid schools still produce well-educated students; we just wish the schools would get on board!
By Christine D'Amico, MA Elementary Ed
I'm sitting in yet another meeting for staff development on the common core curriculum. This meeting is for Special Ed Teachers, the Special Ed supervisor for the district is talking about "hotspots" – "And one of the "hotspots" as you know, is that our students must tell us where they are academically and how they intend to move to the next level." I raised my eyebrows and made a face in her direction. "What?" she questioned, "We're all professionals here, and do you have something to add?" "Not really" I replied, "No, I insist, you obviously have something on your mind and we'd like to hear it." "Look" I stated firmly, "I don't know many adults who can tell you where they are academically and how they expect to get to the next level, no less children, no less special needs children! Now, the kids can tell you what they like to do and what they don't like to do, but to ask them to present their academic portfolio on the spot is simply not appropriate. The professionals in the classroom must discern and administer efficient methodologies to teach the kids and get them to the next levels; this should not be a concern of the students." We're seated in a big square table; the other teachers are all within my sight. As I look around seeking support, most remain mute not daring to question the status quo, only one strong dynamic teacher nods her head feverishly in agreement and asserts "Exactly!" "Well," maintains the supervisor, "This is what is coming down the pipe all our kids have to be 'proactive learners'." "Yes, well," I quipped, "it's simply not appropriate." "'Proactive learners'" I rolled my eyes thinking, "These people love to use phrases that have snappy ideals with little meaning in the classroom."
The conversation went on to other "hotspots" which made no reference to real scientifically based practices in the classroom, the pressures from above to conform to these requirements are thus thrust upon classroom teachers. Yet another meeting with lots of form and little function while newer teachers do not dare question authority for fear of reprisal and senior teachers object behind the backs of these supervisors - tired of ridiculous meetings promising lots of something delivering nothing. Thus the "Much Ado About Nothing" merry-go-round of pedagogy rolls on.
So how did we get here in our schools and what happens to teachers who really are innovative and question the status quo? First a little history of American Education - American education in the early 1900's was designed to teach students academics: phonics, reading, writing, math, American history, world history, world geography, American geography, science, grammar, art, art history, literature, poetry, students were taught directly and systematically and they were assigned memorization and recitation of important documents. Students in the early 1900's had a course load that was full and diverse. High school graduates during this time had a broad education which was well grounded in academics. There was no illiteracy problem because these students were taught to read phonetically. Their knowledge base was probably better than most college graduates today. Then, along came John Dewey, who said that schools needed to be more sensitive and progressive. "Schools should be places where we can build a new political order, teaching students to think critically and be open minded." This is progressive education. A new era emerged for education.
Teachers were then encouraged to forego academics and put more of a thrust on progressive paradigms such as working cooperatively and learning by exploration rather than rote. A new emphasis on bolstering self-esteem by changing the grading system emerged. New teaching models came into the classroom, out went the memorization of facts and phonics, in came a new pedagogy that was implicitly based called "Constructivism" - "We learn through exploration and we learn to read in the same way we learn to speak." This became the mantra of pedagogues. Group learning, group seating, grading with rubrics, collaboration, open classrooms, schools without walls, cooperative learning, multiage approaches, whole language, the social curriculum, experiential education, and numerous forms of alternative schools all have important philosophical roots in progressive education.
Though the progressive educators end goal for students has always been critical thinking and a highly educated diverse population, their methodologies lack rigor and scientific backing. Without phonics directly and systematically taught in our classrooms, illiteracy soared. First came the "Look-Say" method (remember Dick and Jane?) later came whole language, which outlawed phonics in any way, shape or form in the classroom. Illiteracy rates skyrocketed and though there has been some pushback from parents and educators, these trends remain in place. We are now down to basically teaching three subjects in school, reading, writing and math. The methods employed in the classroom are so inefficient that we have to spend lots of time on these disciplines. What could be taught efficiently in Kindergarten and First Grade is drawn out for years. We can't fit in other disciplines because our students can't handle the rigor. If you can't read, write and spell, you simply can't handle lots of other subjects.
In contrast, students who were educated in the early 1900's with traditional classrooms had many subjects and were able to handle a full course load. These graduates had more knowledge and were therefore better critical thinkers than those who are now subjected to progressive education. In fact, progressive pedagogy produces the exact opposite of its goal and in the face of science, which backs direct, systematic, rigorous instruction progressive educators remain married to their paradigms. Our schools are infiltrated and infected with this disease called progressive education, when in fact there is nothing progressive about it! The progressive model is backwards, it is not helping our students really acquire the knowledge they need to become strong, smart citizens and is forcing the entire system to crumble.
Progressive educators in universities (like Columbia Teachers College) sit around thinking up ways to create curriculum which orbits around their paradigms. College professors follow the curriculum without question; therefore new teachers are indoctrinated in these methods. These methods grab hold of schools and school districts like parasites and because we only have a precious few hours in school with our children, much of these time-wasting, inappropriate pedagogical approaches result in lower academic achievement in our students. These people experiment on our students and teachers with their poorly written curriculum. Many teachers who are under strict orders to use these time-wasting procedures are distraught that they cannot use scientifically based pedagogy in their classrooms.
Progressive educators would like to promote a more democratic society advocating greater equity, justice, diversity and other democratic values, yet their methodologies do just the opposite, with "Fuzzy Math" and "Whole Language" causing lesser privileged students who can't afford tutoring to fall way behind. NYC has 70% of its student population in this category. Imagine how devastating to the morale and sense of self-esteem the use of poor curriculums can have on a child's psyche. These students subjected to these methods grow to believe they can't do anything; they are labeled as special needs children and become distraught that they are not mentally capable of becoming educated. Many are just pushed through the system because there is no where else for them to go. Progressivism which is trying to enforce some kind of social agenda, rather than purely impart knowledge, is causing many students to fail and teachers to become distraught and despondent.
What do teachers who refuse to follow the leader do? Many shut their doors and pull out the curriculum they know works. I know of teachers who, when whole language is being implemented by the district, will use their phonics programs undercover. Teachers will set up look-outs in the hall to see if supervisors are coming and drill students in what to do should a supervisor show up. I have had my students open their "readers" and put in the phonics books I'm using inside. "If someone comes you take the book slide it in your desk and pretend you're reading." I've instructed.
In NYC, the high school teachers in one district staged a protest at the district office against the use of the Teachers College method in their classrooms. These teachers were told to conform to the method or else be punished. The UFT chapter leader who headed up this protest ended up in the Rubber Room with charges of insubordination. He was despondent, demoralized and depressed; worried that his very career would be ended. This brave leader persevered and was restored to his position in school with the charges dropped. The high school teachers won their battle and were told they could use their own methods in their classrooms.
One time during a summer school program, I brought my own personal reading kit (worth $2000) up four flights to my New York City classroom and bought all the kids their own workbooks at a cost of over $250. I did this because the summer school materials were so poorly written and so benign I knew they would not make a dent in the minds of these students who were already anywhere from two to five years behind in reading. In fact, the summer school materials were junk magazines created by some publisher who had a contract with the district. When the summer school district superintendent and principal came into my classroom to observe my students obviously using a multi-sensory method, singing phonics songs, spelling in groups, reading in groups and writing I was questioned, "Why aren't you using the mandated program?" "I would challenge you to think about your choice of curriculum for these students, these kids need a powerful program to get them up and running. I have always gotten high test scores with this program." Later behind closed doors, the principal sternly rebuked, "How dare you confront the superintendent in front of me!" And so it goes, smart teachers with smart innovative programs that actually are proven to work "get it". I was punished severely by that principal for speaking out, who wrote me up and even removed me from the classroom. Yet, my students outscored their peers that summer.
Another teacher who had gotten high test scores repeatedly using her method of spelling and vocabulary enhancement in her classroom was told not use her method as "spelling has nothing to do with reading." (which is a flat out lie)? So, she used the methods enforced by the district. When she was called into her supervisor who was questioning her test scores she said, "Well, I used your methods, I did exactly what you told me to do, so you can turn around and look in the mirror because that's the person who caused these low test scores." After that, she decided to leave the classroom and become a cluster teacher because, "There's just too much pressure on classroom teachers to do the wrong thing." Sometimes smart teachers can't take it anymore and just abandon ship.
In math, if the district brings in a fuzzy program, smart teachers buy their own books, use the programs they know work and close their doors. They speak out against the ridiculous choices made by the district and refuse to use their programs. Some teachers are disciplined for not following the requirements while others can get away with creating their own programs. I don't use the mandated math program in our school; it's the most confusing program I've ever seen. I look at the Core Knowledge requirements and follow it, creating a program for my Special Needs kids. After all, if the math program doesn't make sense to me, it won't make sense to First Graders! Common sense, please!
So, what is a really smart teacher? Smart teachers want to teach using scientifically sound curriculums that work and never fail, even the slowest learners. They want to use what we know about the brain and learning in their classroom curriculum. (Did you know that teachers are never taught brain science in their education training courses? Imagine and these are the people who are working with the brain all day long!) Innovative teachers want to access the entire brain using multisensory curriculums. These teachers want to empower their students with as much knowledge as possible. They look at the whole student, their home life, their diet, their support systems and they have compassion and love in their hearts for each one. Smart teachers encourage and expect the absolute best, yet they make things easy by using direct, systematic, explicit curriculum which clearly lays out expectations and produces measurable results. Smart educators want to learn about what works, these are teachers who will pay their way to conferences which enhance their own teaching so they can impart knowledge in the best most efficient manner in our schools. These are the teachers who will go the extra mile again and again to help their students succeed.
Too often people, especially within institutions, dig their heals in deep into their own paradigms whether correct or not, in order to protect their territory, their status quo, their own need to be right. In education and our schools this is a most egregious offense because, at stake, are the futures and lives of the children we serve. We can no longer afford to remain stoic in our mindsets, and although cloaked with lofty goals, the progressive educational movement in the United States has created a pedagogical mess, which must be untangled and common sense must prevail.
Smart teachers, who are bold and use common sense, must take a stand, and speak out against the common trends in academia to waste time and dumb down our classrooms. We want to produce bright students who have much knowledge and can think critically. You can't put the cart before the horse; the ability to think critically only comes with much knowledge and understanding of many disciplines. Smart teachers in stupid schools still produce well-educated students; we just wish the schools would get on board!
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)