The east coast just survived a major storm. It certainly wasn't the first and won't be the last. Our schools have been closed for 2 days, so kids and many teachers are very happy. It is a wonderful feeling to not have to venture out of the house in dangerous conditions. Not everyone has that luxury; witnessed by the cars and trucks on the highways whenever the news would flash to a live picture of the interstates. But, must the closing of schools be a disruption to student learning?
As we, as a society, become more and more connected by the Internet, texting, etc., is there a way to put some sort of virtual learning in place so that our students don't really lose two days of school? My brain is coming up with many reasons why this isn't possible at this moment in time, but I'd rather think about how amazing this could be. The naysayers who read this can comment on the negative and list them, if they'd like to waste energy on that list.
Last night, even as each of my co-workers reported that they had lost power, they still had their smartphones and were able to continue to stay connected. Maybe our school systems need to begin to brainstorm ways to put some of these learning opportunities in place. This is such an exciting time. Putting virtual learning opportunities into place could be one more way that our school system could capitalize on days when the schoolhouse can't be open. Witness how quickly your own children become bored when the power goes out. But, as mentioned, my own son never lost his cellphone service. He was texting, etc throughout the storm. Could your students be Tweeting with you when school is closed? Could teachers have Facebook groups? Could you all come up with even better ideas?
Very exciting times!
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Posted with Blogsy
Saturday, October 13, 2012
The Avengers
Watching the BluRay of the Avengers...less than 5 minutes in and Loki says, " I'm burdened with glorious purpose."
As a reflective teacher, I think this is my new mantra. In my mind, this says it all!
As a reflective teacher, I think this is my new mantra. In my mind, this says it all!
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Equity
The word equity has been used in education for many years. Mostly it seems to refer to whether all student sub-groups are being given the same opportunities to learn. It has been argued that girls are not pressed to justify answers or even answer higher-level questions. It has also been argued that the same is true for certain minority students. It is my premise that the majority of teachers do not do this consciously. I think that most teachers have a nurturing streak that sometimes interferes with equal opportunity for all students. By this I mean...most teachers don't want to embarrass their students or put them on the spot. So I've watched as teachers ask a student a question and if the student can't answer immediately, they move to another student. The initial student is off the hook but what did they learn? I'll let that question hang for my readers to ponder.
But...the more I read and think about the art and science of teaching mathematics, the more I believe that equity is a far greater issue than looking at the opportunities given to sub-groups. I'm starting to believe that most every decision a teacher makes while planning an executing their lessons can be a gained or lost opportunity to teach all students equally.
PLANNING: How is the teacher utilizing the resources available for planning and executing their lessons? In our county, every course comes with a curriculum guide. These guides are created using the combined talents of the master teachers who teach that course. Their ideas, instructional strategies, and best practices are written into the guide, giving all teachers of that course proven ways to help students be successful. The writers also purposefully write connections among lessons and units. If a teacher, not aware of the big picture of the course, chooses to skip the mathematical task in one unit, they've lost the opportunity to continually refer to it as the course progresses. When a teacher makes the decision not to use the curriculum guide and the prescribed strategies and activities, they have made a decision to rob their students of proven opportunities. (an aside...I know there are some readers who are starting to fume at this point. I know that there are other ways to present content.) The hard fact is that our school system is the 25th largest school system in the United States. We have around 11,000 algebra I students. We also have movement within our county. By that I mean that many families move from an existing area of the county to another part of the county. When a student changes schools, there needs to be consistency. So, Teacher A decides not to follow the curriculum guide and skips any task that requires gathering materials or manipulatives or engages the students in discussion. That teacher has just robbed their students of an opportunity. The students who never leave the school have no idea that other students in the county are being given richer opportunities to learn the mathematics on a deeper level. To me, this becomes an equity issue. What gives a teacher who has signed a contract to teach the curriculum the right to make decisions like that. (Now for the readers who are really fuming...I'm not talking about the teachers who are thoroughly planned and provide their students with alternative lessons that maintain the integrity and fidelity of the written curriculum. I am talking about the teachers who disregard a rich task and change the lesson into a direct instruction, "I talk, you listen" experience). Unfortunately students can not easily get a new teacher if they don't change schools.
LANGUAGE: I hear mathematics teachers using slang terms all the time as they develop content. I think this is a huge equity issue. I have teachers argue with me and rationalize their use of incorrect terminology, like saying plug instead of substitute. One 6th grade teacher said that he and his peers in high school in calc III used those slang terms all the time and so did their teacher (who he says was the best teacher he ever had). My rebuttal to him was that by the time he was a senior in high school, he was 'in the club' so to speak. Experts in various fields have a tendency to create short-cuts in their communication when speaking to peers. What I tried to explain to him is that he had been given opportunities to hear and use the correct vocabulary and symbolism as he progressed, giving him the chance to get into the 'club' and speak in the shortened language. I told him that he was teaching 11-year olds who should be given every opportunity to hear correct language and see correct use of the mathematical symbolism so that maybe someday they, too, could get in the club. Every time a teacher takes short-cuts, whether with language or by teaching some trick for a mathematical process before developing the concept, they are robbing students of opportunities from which many of them may never recover. That is an equity issue.
I believe that teachers need to remember that they are teachers every single second that students are present, whether in the classroom or the cafeteria, or talking to them individually. Every interaction becomes an opportunity to show students the importance and beauty of mathematics. If we consciously think about our roles of assisting our students to see and believe in the importance of mathematics and model this love of subject with the execution of well-planned lessons, I don't think we'd have to worry about equity.
But...the more I read and think about the art and science of teaching mathematics, the more I believe that equity is a far greater issue than looking at the opportunities given to sub-groups. I'm starting to believe that most every decision a teacher makes while planning an executing their lessons can be a gained or lost opportunity to teach all students equally.
PLANNING: How is the teacher utilizing the resources available for planning and executing their lessons? In our county, every course comes with a curriculum guide. These guides are created using the combined talents of the master teachers who teach that course. Their ideas, instructional strategies, and best practices are written into the guide, giving all teachers of that course proven ways to help students be successful. The writers also purposefully write connections among lessons and units. If a teacher, not aware of the big picture of the course, chooses to skip the mathematical task in one unit, they've lost the opportunity to continually refer to it as the course progresses. When a teacher makes the decision not to use the curriculum guide and the prescribed strategies and activities, they have made a decision to rob their students of proven opportunities. (an aside...I know there are some readers who are starting to fume at this point. I know that there are other ways to present content.) The hard fact is that our school system is the 25th largest school system in the United States. We have around 11,000 algebra I students. We also have movement within our county. By that I mean that many families move from an existing area of the county to another part of the county. When a student changes schools, there needs to be consistency. So, Teacher A decides not to follow the curriculum guide and skips any task that requires gathering materials or manipulatives or engages the students in discussion. That teacher has just robbed their students of an opportunity. The students who never leave the school have no idea that other students in the county are being given richer opportunities to learn the mathematics on a deeper level. To me, this becomes an equity issue. What gives a teacher who has signed a contract to teach the curriculum the right to make decisions like that. (Now for the readers who are really fuming...I'm not talking about the teachers who are thoroughly planned and provide their students with alternative lessons that maintain the integrity and fidelity of the written curriculum. I am talking about the teachers who disregard a rich task and change the lesson into a direct instruction, "I talk, you listen" experience). Unfortunately students can not easily get a new teacher if they don't change schools.
LANGUAGE: I hear mathematics teachers using slang terms all the time as they develop content. I think this is a huge equity issue. I have teachers argue with me and rationalize their use of incorrect terminology, like saying plug instead of substitute. One 6th grade teacher said that he and his peers in high school in calc III used those slang terms all the time and so did their teacher (who he says was the best teacher he ever had). My rebuttal to him was that by the time he was a senior in high school, he was 'in the club' so to speak. Experts in various fields have a tendency to create short-cuts in their communication when speaking to peers. What I tried to explain to him is that he had been given opportunities to hear and use the correct vocabulary and symbolism as he progressed, giving him the chance to get into the 'club' and speak in the shortened language. I told him that he was teaching 11-year olds who should be given every opportunity to hear correct language and see correct use of the mathematical symbolism so that maybe someday they, too, could get in the club. Every time a teacher takes short-cuts, whether with language or by teaching some trick for a mathematical process before developing the concept, they are robbing students of opportunities from which many of them may never recover. That is an equity issue.
I believe that teachers need to remember that they are teachers every single second that students are present, whether in the classroom or the cafeteria, or talking to them individually. Every interaction becomes an opportunity to show students the importance and beauty of mathematics. If we consciously think about our roles of assisting our students to see and believe in the importance of mathematics and model this love of subject with the execution of well-planned lessons, I don't think we'd have to worry about equity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)