Category Archives: Elementary

Translation from Finnish

Posted by hilary@hydrogeninteractive.com on October 5, 2013
Education, Education Policy, Elementary, Life in the Classroom, Mentoring, Teacher Leadership, Travel

The following is a guest-post from Sarah Applegate, an NBCT teacher librarian at River Ridge High School in Lacey Washington. She is passionate about quality information literacy instruction, working with teachers to provide a wide range of resources for students, and dark, bitter Finnish licorice.

I have a confession.
I am a “Finnophile” (“one who
loves all things from Finland”) and a “ChauvaFinn”
(“one who displays excessive pride in Finland”) yet I hold an American passport.
My friends and colleagues will
tell you that since I returned from a Fulbright study in Finland in 2011, I
have sought out every opportunity to reflect upon and share what I learned and
observed during my research on the Finnish education and library system. Some might say I sought out TOO many
opportunities- during casual dinners, on long runs, and while watching our kids
at the park, to share memories,
insights and observations from my time in Finland. While embracing my Finnish obsession,
I have continued to reflect on what I observed while in Finnish schools and
libraries. I have constantly considered how schools in Washington could learn
from Finnish education practice and translate them into Washington state
settings.

On September 21, I was finally able to make connections
between what I had learned and observed in Finland through a Finnish Education
Conference, funded by the US Department of State with support from CSTP and
WEA. We gathered 50 teachers from Washington to hear and think about what makes
Finland’s education system work and how their approaches could be used in
Washington state schools. I brought together four US Finland Fulbright
teachers, as well as two Finnish teachers, to speak on how Finland organizes
their education system, designs and delivers instruction and trains their teachers.
During the morning, participants were able to learn about Finnish education practices
and in the afternoon, teachers a chance to “translate” what they had learned to
their own teaching context and plan for potential implementation of Finnish
practices in their Washington state setting. What we translated has some promising implications for us in our schools – read on to see what we cooked up.

Continue reading →

Teacher Fever

Posted by Janette MacKay on October 3, 2012
Assessment, Education, Elementary, Professional Development, Social Issues

I woke up in the middle of the night, and knew something was
wrong. I was cold, hot, shaking, queasy, everything ached. I stumbled into the
bathroom to find a thermometer and wait…

wait…

yup. A fever. Now it’s definitive. I’m sick.

Like somehow I didn’t know that until after the little
number popped up on the thermometer.

Well, it’s probably just a little virus, or something I ate.
Uncomfortable, unpleasant, but not serious I consoled myself as I curled up on
the floor by the toilet where I would be spending the next few hours.

A temperature tells us our immune system is working. It’s
fighting off the weakness in the body and in a day or two, we will be well
again. Most fevers don’t send us running off to the doctor. Unless they persist…

A fever tells us something is wrong. But by itself, it
doesn’t tell us what is wrong or how serious it might be. It takes a while to
figure out if you need to call in sick, or check into the hospital. Just get some rest, or run expensive tests
using big humming medical equipment. These are the thoughts running through my
head at 2am on the floor of the bathroom.

What does any of this have to do with teaching? Well, since
I’m home sick today, I’m sitting here looking at my school’s MSP scores from
this past year. We, like many schools, seem to have a bit of a fever. Our
scores aren’t where we’d like them to be. They certainly aren’t terrible, but they’ve
declined two years in a row. I guess you would call that a fever in
reverse. Anyway, it appears that we’re a
bit under the weather. However, the numbers that I’m looking at don’t tell the
whole story. It’s a small school. A few kids having a bad day are enough to
change our scores from one year to the next. Listen to the staff conversations about
this, and we all have an idea what caused the trouble. But what we don’t have
is expensive medical equipment that can give us a definitive diagnosis. All we
have is the number on the thermometer.

Do we need more professional development to help improve our
instruction?

Or new curriculum?

Or a new intervention program?

Or new technology?

Or stronger anti-poverty initiatives?

Or maybe a better thermometer?

Maybe the one we have is broken.

After all, in the past few years we’ve changed our test from
the WASL to the MSP, and then changed the administration of that test from
paper and pencil to computer based. It’s hard to compare year to year using an
inconsistent tool. Looking at National Assessment (NAEP)
scores from the past ten years, our 4^th grade state scores have
remained relatively unchanged. It
doesn’t seem to matter what we do: which curriculum we adopt, which diagnostic
test we administer, which RtI model we embrace. The scores have not wavered in
the past decade.

According to the Flynn
Effect, we are getting more intelligent over time. If that’s true, then
seriously, why aren’t our test scores rising?

I’m not saying we can’t or shouldn’t do anything to try and
raise student achievement. On the contrary, I think we need to do even more…way
more…to figure out how to level the playing field, provide meaningful,
appropriate instruction, and assess it in ways that aren’t skewed by politics.
If after a decade this fever has persisted, it seems like it’s time to do more
than just keep taking our temperature over and over.

Reality Check

Posted by Janette MacKay on August 9, 2012
Education, Elementary, Teacher Leadership

What do you say when someone tells you they want to be a teacher?

You’ve probably had this conversation: some starry-eyed young college graduate starts to tell you about how he’s going to become a teacher so he can inspire his students and help the parents and do all these great projects and…

I remember when I was that young teacher how deflating it was to hear veteran teachers grumble about how things have changed and all the joy has been taken out of teaching. As a novice teacher, I vowed to never get all bitter and grumbly.

And now?

Continue reading →

NCLB 2.012

Posted by Rob on October 30, 2011
Assessment, Current Affairs, Education, Education Policy, Elementary, Literacy, Mathematics

By Rob

In a comment on my recent blog post Tom asks: "How can we rewrite the federal education bill so that it actually helps student learn?" This is a huge question. The difficult issues of funding, evaluation, accountability, standards, and testing must be addressed in a politically feasible manner. I don’t know what is feasible but I'd advocate for these ideas-

Standards: I support national standards. As a population we are more mobile than ever and there should not be a drastic difference in the curricular content among states. This requires a level of monitoring and evaluation of states and educational systems. Currently this evaluation and monitoring is done by comparing the separate standardized tests in each state. Although these tests are given to every student multiple times throughout their schooling it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions since these tests vary in rigor and content. Our testing system needs reform.

Testing: Evaluation and monitoring of education systems is necessary for oversight and informed policy decisions. However this does not require the current two week assessment window, every child tested, a huge financial cost, lost instructional time, and enormous pressure on educators and students. Instead this should be done with a smaller randomized sample of students and less impact and intrusion on instruction.

Summative tests, currently the HSPE and MSP (sort of), are assessments of learning given at the end of a particular educational stage. Passing these tests is necessary for students to receive credits or in some cases progress to the next grade. Presently these are a part of a broken testing system. With rare exception, the students who come into the tenth grade performing far below grade level are the ones who are not going to pass the High School Proficiency Exam.

This idea isn’t new but I support summative tests at grade 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12. Students should not exit that grade until they are proficient. How can a fifth grade teacher instruct a student on comparing and contrasting an author’s inferred message when the student is struggling to sound out every third word? How can an eighth grade math teacher approach the Pythagorean Theorem with a student who struggles to multiply?

I’ve heard teachers say (myself included) I could teach 35 students if they came to me proficient in the previous year’s content. Let’s go with this idea-

It begins with half day Pre-K for all students and full day kindergarten. Before they leave kindergarten they need to know their letter sounds, numbers, reading behaviors, and should be able to read and discuss the events in a predictable text. Those who are proficient enter a first grade class capped at 24 students (35 is too many first graders for any teacher no matter how academically proficient the kids are). Those who are approaching proficiency enter a first grade class capped at 16. Those far below proficiency enroll in a class capped at 12.

Schools would use their ongoing formative assessment in grades 1,2,4,6,7,9, and 11 to reconfigure classes and to carry the model forward. The student who enters second approaching standard but exits meeting standard would enroll in the third grade class with the highest student-teacher ratio.

This model has imbedded funding implications. The schools with the highest performing students would have higher class sizes and would be cheaper to staff as long as they continued to maintain high student performance. The schools with lower performing students, ostensibly with underserved populations, would have a lower teacher-pupil ratio and would receive more funding.

This model is not without its challenges. Schools would need to take great care not to track students by providing some students with continual remediation while others engage in higher order thinking. I believe smaller numbers of students is important when serving struggling students in reading and math it is also important for students not to be ability grouped for other content areas.

Can somebody tell me why this wouldn't be an improvement? Maybe this idea isn’t ready to be written into law but couldn’t congress earmark some funding so some districts could try it?

Corrective Action

Posted by Rob on October 26, 2011
Assessment, Current Affairs, Education, Education Policy, Elementary, Life in the Classroom, Literacy, Teacher Leadership

By Rob

My school is in the third round of No Child Left Behind sanctions. Among other procedures these sanctions call for ‘corrective action’ to be taken.

Arriving at this point wasn’t a surprise. It’s taken many years to get here. Our school has been labeled ‘failing’ for a while but only after seeing last year’s test results do I feel like we’ve failed. No teacher at our school wanted to enter the third round of NCLB sanctions. Round 2, Schools of Choice, was embarrassing enough.

There was pressure to improve our school’s test results. I sensed a change in the tone of my evaluations. Many new teachers were not hired for year two. A veteran teacher was removed. It seemed to me that the pressure was high and morale was low.

Perhaps other teachers felt this pressure more acutely than I. Last year many of them have transferred elsewhere. Of 23 classroom teachers 11 are novice (in their first or second year). In my tenth year teaching I’m the second most experienced teacher at our school.

I’ve wondered how we’ve arrived at this unfortunate point. Each fall we receive our state’s standardized test scores. Teachers, energized and committed, face the challenge. We’ve created systems for tracking student progress, providing extra support, engaging families, growing professionally, and improving instruction. I believe some of these systems have been of great benefit to students.

While I thought these systems were beneficial our data never really showed it. Here’s what it shows: (click the picture for a clearer view)

In 2011 our scores dropped 30% to under 40% of students passing the 4^th grade reading MSP. The year before 71.4% of students passed the 3^rd grade reading MSP. The test didn’t get harder. The state average pass rate remained flat. This isn’t isolated to one grade. Our 3^rd grade reading pass rate fell 13.1% from the previous year. Our 5^th grade reading pass rate fell 32.8% from the previous year.

This drop in performance is startling. So what happened? Who knows? I wish I had more answers and fewer questions.

Did the students consistently miss a particular type of reading comprehension question? That could be addressed with an adjustment to the curriculum.

With a 37% mobility rate could the students who left be the ones who passed in 2010. Might they have been replaced with students who didn't pass? How about the families who left because of school choice (a NCLB sanction for schools in step 2 of improvement)? Did the student population change significantly? Are we comparing the same students from year to year?

Did students who narrowly passed the MSP in 2010 narrowly miss passing in 2011? Did a slight drop in performance signify a drastic drop in the percent of students meeting standard?

Did significant numbers of non passing students come from specific classrooms?

Could school community, teacher morale, and the shame & blame policies of NCLB account, at least in part, for a dramatic drop in student performance?

Answers to these questions are important as a school undergoes “corrective action.” I don’t know if anybody is asking these questions. I don’t know if answers are available. But I’d like to know exactly what problem I’m correcting and we all deserve a clearer answer than ‘you didn’t meet adequate yearly progress again.’

Testing the Limit

Posted by Rob on September 23, 2011
Assessment, Current Affairs, Education, Education Policy, Elementary, Life in the Classroom, Literacy, Mathematics

By Rob

Great investments have been made to collect and use data. The role of assessments and use of student data has shifted and it has changed the nature of education.

The standardized test, Washington’s Measurement of Student Progress, is analyzed extensively to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind. It is used to identify schools as “failing to meet adequate yearly progress.” It is used to rank-order schools. New metrics which control for the impact of poverty use this data to compare effectiveness among districts. This assessment comes at a great cost- financial, time, lost instruction, grading, and tools for analyzing. The information gained from it could be found with a smaller sample size and at a lower cost.

The Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) tracks student growth across a school year. This test is completed by students on a laptop in a separate classroom. Our technology and curriculum coach devotes weeks to setting up the computers, scheduling, and proctoring each class. The list of goals compiled for each student is exhausting and includes standards not covered for months or years or, depending on the curriculum, not taught at all. I am pleased when the assessment result matchs my analysis of the student but often it doesn’t.

I get very little actionable intelligence from the results of my MSP or MAP scores. But increasingly I have to answer for the results.

The emphasis on testing extends far beyond MSP and MAP. Over the course of the school year my students must complete 32 mandated “common assessments” with the score recorded into a database. How the scores are used I have no idea. Increasingly these assessments feel more like an audit of my teaching than a tool for improving student learning.

Students also complete regular math and spelling quizzes. This is an additional 85 assessments. While these tests tie closely to the content they contribute to the culture of ‘no child left untested.’ My students are expected to demonstrate their proficiency 117 times throughout a 180 day school year. They are second graders. In third grade the assessment load will increase.

This certainly wasn’t my experience in elementary school. It wasn’t even the experience of my students ten years ago. And this emphasis on testing isn’t preparing my students for adulthood: The last assessment I took was four years ago.

One form of assessment has been overlooked by policy makers and more attention should be paid. It is the teacher’s ongoing examination of student progress and understanding. Teachers use this information to inform their practice and to adjust lesson pacing. It gives teachers an indication of what to re-teach or where to extend. It allows teachers to identify struggling students while there is time to arrange extra support. It requires acute observation and meaningful interactions with students. This process is at the heart of teaching; it’s where the magic happens. It happens every day… except when we're testing.

New Beginning

Posted by Rena on August 17, 2011
Current Affairs, Elementary

School starts in one week for me and I am so excited. I have been teaching first grade for 20 years and each year is so very exciting and wonderful, I can hardly sleep at night in the anticipation. There are currently 26 students assigned to our room. It will be interesting to see what “new” accronym will be applied to our teaching. There has been some talk among administration that we should begin PBIS, RTI, and our district will be doing TPEP. Ahhh, why or why do we educators always look so hopefuly to some new inovative idea that will sovle all of our problems?? Have you ever had the luxury of strolling about a book store and paruse the shelves of books written by well meaning people that describe just how, if we would only use this method or intervention each child would learn, all your behavior/discipline problems would melt away and everything would be just fine?
Whenever anyone decides what make a good teacher the conversation seems to never end, there is always one more dimension to consider. There are just too many layers, partly due to the fact that we have so many different types of learners that bring to the class a different culture for learing. There couldn’t possibly be one solution, yet we continue to search.
Some of our teachers went to a training for Read Naturally – well, what say we Teach Naturally. We have a set of clearly defined standards, many districts have taken the time to define what it looks like when a student has met the standard and we teachers are trained on how to teach the concepts and strategies so students can understand and apply the learning – Is it asking too much for policy makers and other legislation to stop complicating the issue of teaching and allow us to do our jobs? Knowing I will have 26, or possibly more, students that look to me for understanding in math, science, literacy, social studies, and social skills, I am aware that I will need to have many and various strategies to engage, challenge and teach them. Once we have met and I get a clear picture of what it is they currently know and can do, I will need to develop lessons that clearly outline the progression of learning that will allow the students to achieve the standards for first grade. They will need opportunity learn, time to practice, authentic, formative, summative assessments with feedback. In otherwords, they will need to know the learning target, and how to achieve the target.It is challenging, but so very worthwhile when they discover they know a new concept or have met a particularly difficult standard.
One year I had a student that seemed to have all the pieces together(phonics, phonemic awareness, etc) that would allow him to begin to read, yet it just wasn’t happening. After several different strageties and approaches, we found a book that was of a rebus style that he really liked and began to read the book – he was so excited that he took it home to show his family how he could now read. When he returned to school the next day, he read the entire book to me – then with a large smile he looked at me as said,”Isn’t it cool how I taught myself how to read?” Yes, that is was very cool! Learning begins with the learner, the key is having the resources and time to know the student and help design a path of learning for that unique individual student, not trying to wrap some acronym that represents a “researched based” program around the student.

Cursive, Anyone?

Posted by Tom White on December 29, 2009
Education Policy, Elementary

By Tom

Back in the mid-eighties, when I was fresh out of college and looking for a teaching job, I stopped by the Everett School District to apply for a position teaching fifth grade. When I checked in with the receptionist I was handed a piece of notebook paper and a pen and told to write an essay. I forgot what the topic was supposed to be, but I remember specifically being told to write in cursive. Unfortunately, I did not see that coming.

Needless to say, I didn't get that job. But I shook it off and went on to become a third grade teacher. That's the grade in which every American student learns how to write a paragraph, how to multiply and divide, how to subtract with borrowing and (ironically) how to write in cursive.

But that might be changing.

Continue reading →

Stories From School

Practice Meets Policy

Category Archives: Elementary

Translation from Finnish

Reality Check

NCLB 2.012

Corrective Action

Testing the Limit

New Beginning

Cursive, Anyone?