Kai on teachers writing curriculum

Kai writes:

Wasn't Englemann the same one who said (paraphrased), "Making curriculum and teaching it at the same time is like building the airplane as you try to fly it...".

Curriculum is hard. At one of my schools I spent 30 hours over the summer just making a scope and sequence with four other people. "Making your own curriculum" is just shorthand for non-systematic throw it against the wall and see what sticks.

Building the airplane while you try to fly it---I love that!

I don't remember reading that before.

Let me tell you: 30 hours to write a scope and sequence with four other people sounds fast to me.

That reminds me!

Daniel Kahneman has a fabulous curriculum-writing story in Thinking, Fast and Slow:

A few years after my collaboration with Amos began, I convinced some officials in the Israeli Ministry of Education of the need for a curriculum to teach judgment and decision making in  high schools. The team that I assembled to design the curriculum and write a textbook for it included several experienced teachers, some of my psychology students, and Seymour Fox, then dean of the Hebrew University's School of Education, who was an expert in curriculum development.

After meeting every Friday afternoon for about a year, we had constructed a detailed outline of the syllabus, had written a couple of chapters, and had run a few sample lessons in the classroom. We all felt that we had made good progress. One day, as we were discussing procedures for estimating uncertain quantities, the idea of conducting an exercise occurred to me. I asked everyone to write down an estimate of how long it would take us to submit a finished draft of the textbook to the Ministry of Education. I was following a procedure that we already panned to incorporate into our curriculum: the proper way to elicit information from a group is not by starting with a public discussion but by confidentially collecting each person's judgment. ... I collected the estimates and jotted the results on the blackboard. They were narrowly centered around two years; the low end was one and a half, the high end two and a half years.

Then I had another idea. I turned to Seymour, our curriculum expert, and asked whether he could think of other teams similar to ours that had developed a curriculum from scratch. This was a time when several pedagogical innovations like "new math" ha been introduced, and Seymour said he could think of quite a few.

[snip]

He fell silent. When he finally spoke, it seemed to me that he was blushing, embarrassed by his own answer: "You know, I never realized this before, but in fact not all the teams at a stage comparable to ours ever did complete their task...."

This was worrisome; we had never considered the possibility that we mint fail. My anxiety rising, I asked how large he estimated that fraction was. "About 40%," he answered. By now, a pall of gloom was falling over the room. The next question was obvious: "Those who finished," I asked. "How long did it take them?" "I cannot think of any grow that finished in less than seven years," he replied, "nor any that took more than ten."

[snip]

Our state of mind when we heard Seymour is not well described by stating what we "knew." Surely all of us "knew" that a minimum of seven years and a 40% chance of failure was a more plausible forecast of the fate of our project than the numbers we had written on our slips of paper a few minutes earlier. But we did not acknowledge what we knew. The new forecast still seemed unreal, because we could not imagine how it could take so long to finish a project that looked so manageable. ... All we could see was a reasonable plan that should produce a book in about two years....

[snip]

We should have quit that day. None of us was willing to invest six more years of work in a project with a 40% chance of failure. Although we must have ended that persevering was not reasonable, the warning did not provide an immediately compelling reason to quit. After a few minutes of desultory debate, we gathered ourselves together and carried on as if nothing had happened. The book was eventually completed eight(!) years later. By that time I was no longer living in Israel and had long since ceased to be part of the tam, which completed the task after many unpredictable vicissitudes. The initial enthusiasm for the idea in the Ministry of Education had waned by the time the text was delivered and it was never used.

This embarrassing episode remains one of the most instructive experiences of my professional life.

Planning fallacy

Auntie Anne and Anonymous on teachers writing their own curriculum

Anonymous writes:

When I was a new teacher I would have croaked if I had had to write curriculum. And it would have failed miserably. What I did develop over time was the ability to extend curriculum in some realms. But I was glad to have a logical, tested curriculum for Grade 1 Reading. It's too important to be left to multiple teachers winging it.

Right!

My ideal writing team, where curriculum is concerned, is a classroom teacher working with a disciplinary specialist. Classroom teachers have pedagogical content knowledge, mathematicians have the curse of knowledge, et voilà, at least potentially: real math kids can actually learn and comprehend.

(I'd always heard that the Singapore Math series was written by math teachers partnered with mathematicians, but Barry tells me that story is apocryphal.)

The only reason teachers can't write curriculum is that they already have a job teaching.


Auntie Anne:

But these days, "our own curriculum" is often the teacher spending 5 or 10 minutes googling for a worksheet--this was our kids' 6th grade math from start to finish.

Our school likes to say that the curriculum they buy (formerly EM, now moving over to SM) isn't their "curriculum," they just use that as the basic outline and go from there.

Now, there are some websites I love for worksheets ( http://freemathworksheets.net/ is my favorite,) and good sites for information and explanations ( http://www.purplemath.com/ for example), but nothing compares to a carefully constructed, brick-by-brick textbook for completeness, coherence, and consistency.

Ditto.

Here in these parts, the curriculum is becoming Google.

Question from Jen

What do you all think of My Math from McGraw Hill?

My Math is aligned to the CCSS and provides Differentiated Instruction through My Learning Station and Real-World Problem-Solving Readers. I will submit the request for a live webinar with a specialist as soon as I hear back from you.

Sounds ominous, but I haven't gone to look through yet.

I have looked through Jumpmath and would love to use it -- however, they don't have US versions of Grades 1-3 yet, only 4-7 (and our area is K-4). I could deal with explaining to kids about color vs. colour and meter vs. meter, but I'm not sure other teachers (or some parents) would be as, um, easy-going?!

Anyway, any knowledge that people have of My Math -- or of US schools using Jumpmath materials would be great.

And I do promise to do my own homework as well, but it will be the weekend before I have time to do a good job of looking through the curriculum. Unless there's so little of it there that we won't be able to tell about it anyway!

Thank you for any help the blog readers can give! --

They [ STILL! ] Do What They Do!! ;D

When I read this article, it made my blood boil! Amazing that this junk makes it into print! (Since it's Monday, you may want to put reading this one on hold...) Is Algebra Necessary? NYTimes Sunday Review, Opinion Pages I agree with rknop that "the core of his argument is the ultimate in anti-intellectualism"

pop quiz, part 2

re: pop quiz

Try this forced-choice exercise: if a principal wants to improve the quality of
teaching and learning in his or her school, which three of these will have the greatest
impact?

• Observing and evaluating full lessons, preceded by a pre-conference with each teacher and followed by a detailed write-up and post-conference;
• Systematic walkthroughs of the entire school focusing on target areas (for example, the quality of student work on bulletin boards);
• Mini-observations of 3-5 classrooms every day (five minutes per visit) with face to face follow-up conversations with each teacher;
• Quick “drive-by” visits to all classrooms every day to greet students and “manage by walking around”;
• Collecting and checking over teachers’ lesson plans every week;
• Requiring teacher teams to submit common curriculum unit plans in advance, and discussing them with each team;
• Having teacher teams use interim assessments of student learning to improve instruction and help struggling students.

What's a Principal to Do? When You Can’t Do It All, What Are the Highest-Leverage Activities?  by Kim Marshall
Education Week September 20, 2006

Ed, who teaches at the university level, instantly got the answers:

• Requiring teacher teams to submit common curriculum unit plans in advance, and discussing them with each team;
• Having teacher teams use interim assessments of student learning to improve instruction and help struggling students.
• Mini-observations of 3-5 classrooms every day (five minutes per visit) with face to face follow-up conversations with each teacher;

I missed 'unit planning,' which was the first answer Ed picked, and the most important one as far as he is concerned.

And what is unit planning?

Unit planning is curriculum, essentially. At least, of the choices above, "unit planning" is the closest to curriculum.

Marshall writes:

Unit planning – When teachers work together to plan multi-week curriculum units (e.g., the Civil War, the solar system, ratio and proportion), working backwards from state standards, “big ideas,” and unit assessments, the result is more thoughtful instruction, deeper student understanding, and, yes, better standardized-test scores. But this kind of curriculum design is rare; most teachers plan instruction forward, one day or week at a time, and write their unit tests and final exams just before students take them. Principals can counteract this natural tendency by providing the training, support, and time for teacher teams to plan units collaboratively, using peer review and robust design standards to constantly improve their work. 

Of course, I'm not keen on this model, necessarily: I (think I) prefer the Direct Instruction model, or the textbook model, where the curriculum is designed by disciplinary specialists, writers, and editors who work full-time designing the curriculum.

How is it we have full-time teachers designing and writing curriculum???'

Nevertheless, if we are going to have full-time classroom teachers writing curriculum, then focusing on unit planning as opposed to lesson planning strikes me as a very good idea.

Richard DuFour's innovation (the Professional Learning Community) is typically described as a shift from thinking about teaching (inputs) to thinking about learning (outputs).

But when you get closer to what he actually did, I think you have to argue that he also shifted focus from 'lessons' and 'lesson plans' to curriculum.

what is curriculum support specialist, please?

I was sitting here on the sofa going through ancient Education Weeks when I heard Pat Sajak introduce a contestant as "a curriculum support specialist."

"A curriculum support specialist," he said. "What is that?"

answer: "It's a teacher that goes into the classroom to support the curriculum and other teachers."

Who says times are hard? Back in the real Depression, curriculums and teachers didn't have support! Curriculums and teachers had to make do with a principal, a superintendent, and the occasional school nurse.

How fortunate we are today, here with our civilian employment ratio of zilch.

oops

I spoke too soon.

The curriculum support specialist just went bankrupt.

Are Schools Preparing Students Well for the SAT?

The College Board's website says in many different places that the best way to prepare for the test is to do well in school:

Keep in mind that the foundation of a student's SAT and college preparation is a rigorous curriculum of English, mathematics, science, history, and other academic subjects. Students should read extensively and develop good writing skills.

I want that for my children.

My question is, are schools really teaching this rigorous academic curriculum that the college board says is the best prep for the test ?

I took my son's 10th grade PSAT the other day, and found myself aghast (again) at how darn hard this test is. I'm not opposed to rigor, by the way; just wondering if our schools are on the same page.

There were passages dealing with Descartes, dualism, genomes, and neuroscience. Students had to compare two passages that were extremely sophisticated, with both authors agreeing on the main point, but from different perspectives, and their distinctions were subtle.

Not easy......

Cross posted on Perfect Score Project

peer review - con and pro

In the midst of a conversation about peer review (here and here), I happened onto a critique of peer review I though I'd post:

ABSTRACT
The US Supreme Court has recently been wrestling with the issues of the acceptability and reliability of scientific evidence. In its judgement in the case of Daubert versus Merrell Dow, the Court attempted to set guidelines for US judges to follow when listening to scientific experts. Whether or not findings had been published in a peer-reviewed journal provided one important criterion. But in a key caveat, the Court emphasized that peer review might sometimes be flawed and therefore this criterion was not unequivocal evidence of validity or otherwise. A recent analysis of peer review adds to this controversy by identifying an alarming lack of correlation between reviewers’ recommendations.

Something rotten at the core of science?
by David Horrobin

Peer review has its problems, some of which I became aware of several years ago, when Ed and I learned that autism researchers doing behavioral research were being defunded, apparently in favor of funding researchers studying the brain and biology.^* Peer review was involved.

Nevertheless, I do want K-12 curricula to be peer reviewed by specialists in the fields being taught.

Here's a case of a history textbook that was given no peer review:

Another historical malpractice foisted upon American school children came to light in Virginia last week . Once again it comes down to whether the standards of history as a discipline mean anything in the context of elementary and secondary history education.  Few of us would trust our children’s dental care to a historian.  Nor do we assume that anyone who has written a book can write a math textbook, regardless of their educational credentials.  But too often history seems different, subject to lower standards and inadequate review.

[snip]

The case at hand is straightforward.  Our Virginia: Past and Present  (Five Ponds Press, 2010) was approved by the Virginia Board of Education without a single historian involved in the review process. Fortunately an alert historian reviewing her daughter’s assignments noticed the glaring error: a statement that “thousands of Southern blacks fought in the Confederate ranks, including two black battalions under the command of Stonewall Jackson.”  It’s not true.  The reference to Jackson’s army is a total fabrication, and the broader reference to the Confederate army ignores the fact that slaves were forced into service and that there are no data available in any archive to document the statistic. 

So where did author Joy Masoff (not a historian) get her information?  From the Internet.  More specifically, from the web site of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans.  And even more specifically from a page that claims Frederick Douglass as the source for the statistic, but can’t even get his name spelled right.  The relevant quotation from Douglass is taken out of context, and there are no corroborating sources. 

Historical Malpractice and the Writing of Textbooks
By James R. Grossman Malpractice
October 25, 2010

The disciplines are disciplines: they are fields of study with established bodies of knowledge, rules of evidence, and modes of analysis.

A professional historian possesses knowledge and expertise the rest of us don't possess, and that is the knowledge we send our kids to school to acquire. At least, that is the knowledge I sent my children to school to acquire.

History textbooks should be vetted - or preferably written - by historians, math textbooks by mathematicians, and science textbooks by scientists.

That's not to say K-12 teachers should have no involvement; teachers are the people who can tell us whether a textbook is working with students. If a K-12 teacher writes a textbook that's vetted by disciplinary specialists - then great!

I think parents should have a vote on their children's textbooks and curricular materials, too, though in my dream world we wouldn't need to exercise it.



Rethinking Peer Review
The Editors of The New Atlantis, "Rethinking Peer Review," The New Atlantis, Number 13, Summer 2006, pp. 106-110.

^* I no longer remember all the details, and my understanding of what was going on may have been wrong. However, I do recall accurately that behavioral researchers were losing funding at the time. I don't know whether that is true today.

Why Connecticut Schools are Lagging

Throwing Curves has a new post on Why Connecticut Schools are Lagging. For those of us that follow CT education policy, this comes as no surprise. Still, it is nice to see new news sources picking up on what we've know so long.

more fun with public schools

Peter Meyer weighs in

Math and literacy vs. other subjects in elementary school

I recently gave a talk at the Yale China Association in which I learned some interesting things from a couple of Chinese nationals about elementary ed in China. I write about these in my most recent Out in Left Field post, in which I talk about the stereotype of rote learning in East Asian schools.

However, there was one interesting observation that I wanted to highlight here for people's opinions: apparently, in elementary school, mainland Chinese students only have two subjects: math and Chinese, with three hours of math per day.

This got me wondering about the value of early training in history/social studies and science. Are the Chinese losing anything important by delaying these subjects until later? Or is it perhaps a good thing to wait until students are older for these subjects--as opposed to highly cumulative ones like reading/writing and math?

On the other hand, is it perhaps a good idea to give students some variety of subject matter, and a break from all that math and literacy? But even if this is the case, are science and social studies the best candidates for this, or would it be better to instead have more time for art and music?

the trouble with curriculum directors

from Concerned:

I've been on a few textbook selection committees over the years. In the last 10-12 years, there's been a real push to force the selection of certain texts.

Why? I honestly don't know, but I believe that it is a very concerted effort.

Typically teachers are invited to evaluate the texts, but most likely the documents used to collect and organize the information are so skewed, that a text lacking conten will surely win out.

During the last text adoption, I decided which text was best first, then I filled in the scoring guide so it had the highest possibe marks in all categories and all the other texts ranked extremely low.

I just refused to rate them according to the "criteria" listed because it was so bizarre!

Content and coherence were only part of a very small category that was weighted lightly overall. There was no way the evaluation sheet could bring a text with quality content to the forefront.

It was totally ridiculous!

I'm sure that these teachers are going through a similar experience.

This is how curriculum leaders, who typically don't know the subject, drive the selection process - they place the focus on all the other "stuff"

The parents and the school board members should just ask individual teachers DIRECTLY which text/program they believe is best for the students.

This is another example of the anti-knowledge character of public schools: one curriculum director, certified to teach one subject & one subject only, is deemed competent to choose curricula in every subject taught.

Private & parochial schools & universities don't function this way. Authority over curricular choices belongs to departments.

+++++

My impression is that the position of "curriculum director" is a growing specialty in K-12.

Is that right?

Is this a change?

Superintendent: Teaching Doesn't Matter, Curricula Trumps All?

The blogger known as MS_Teacher teaches in a financially-strapped district in Northern California. The other day she wrote,

One of the teachers in my school district was told by our superintendent yesterday that it shouldn't matter who is in the classroom that it all came down to good curriculum.

One of the commenters wrote:

I would ask him where he gets his research. Citation please! Much of the research supports the exact opposite of his claim.

Do you have the sense that this notion that "curriculum trumps all" is prevalent in your district?

I'm rummaging through the literature to find good studies to prove the opposite. Difficult, since most research on K-12 education is so bad.

sauve qui peut...

...which I personally translate as "Save yourself if you can..."^*

Here is eduwonk of all people promoting Education through Exploration. It's worth reading the comments. The anti-NCLB comment is pro-education through exploration. That's not an accident.

^* usual translation: every man for himself

Looky what I got on pre-order!

In addition to the upcoming FLL4, I've put in a pre-order for Susan Wise Bauer's new writing curriculum series, The Complete Writer. It's designed to work with the First Language Lessons series. Woo hoo!

"Orton-Gillingham for Math": "Making Math Real" -- Introductory Post

Making Math Real

http://www.makingmathreal.org/

I just finished the 2-day, 14-hour introduction:

http://www.makingmathreal.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=57

My brain is either fried or overloaded. Lots more sympathy for kids whose learning styles aren't supported in the classroom.

[Aside: hush!--already about the "learning styles". I agree that lots of the edu-babble about learning styles is content-free. However -- I sat, listened, and wrote for 120-minute blocks, about a subject that I am deeply committed to. I'm an adult with a well-honed capacity for taking in new information by listening, and retaining new information by writing. By minute 90, I was overloaded. You go shadow your kid throughout her school day and see how well you could keep up. /Aside]

Making Math Real (MMR) isn't a math curriculum, it is a specific, structured approach to math instruction.

A good analogy is:

Orton-Gillingham approaches to reading = MMR approach to arithmetic and mathematics.

The training is expensive.

Question: Is it worth it?
Answer: If your district is using Everyday Math (or other purely constructivist math curricula), it is definitely worth it to offset the fog of confusion EDM engenders in many kids, with or without LDs.

It may also be less expensive in the long run than putting your kids in Kumon, Sylvan, or other after-school remediation/tutoring programs.

Here's a description from the MMR website:

Multisensory structured methodologies deliver all instruction via the three processing modalities: visual, auditory and kinesthetic-motoric. Students who are struggling experience processing difficulties in either one or more of these processing modalities. Best instructional practices require linking all incoming information across the three channels to maximize successful processing.

Structured curriculum means starting with the simplest elemental foundation and building developmentally in an incremental and systematic progression from the concrete to the abstract. The most powerful aspect of a multisensory structured program is that each current activity and lesson builds the essential developmental tools for success at the next level thereby reaching the full diversity of learning styles and educational needs in all classrooms.

Schwablearning.com was a great source of discussion and information -sharing for non-standard kids. Here are links to previous discussions of Making Math Real on the parent-to-parent board (listed in chronological order):

• http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=3601
• http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=4982
• http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=15320
• http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_discussion.aspx?thread=18313
• http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=19498
• http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=24091
  
• http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=25871

BTW #1: , as part of the class, I am now "bombproof" on my 13 multiplication facts, thanks to the "nine lines". I'd lay it all out for you now...but I am totally used up, cognitively.

And actually, I'm kind of appreciative of that experience -- because, for some of our kids, they are "totally used up, cognitively" before the end of the school day. That doesn't happen so often for us as adults.

BTW #2 -- being "cognitively tapped-out" is why I think homework in k-3 is stupid a waste of the (a) teacher's, (b) student's (c) parent's time and energy.

Connecticut's Curriculum Standards Revision

The State Dept of Ed website has draft curriculum standards posted. If you are a Conn parent or educator, you might want to take a look at what they are doing. I haven't looked through these things carefully, but I want to get the links up here. The letter accompanying the draft standards invites feedback. I don't see why only educators should have fun with this, so please do take a look. The standards will be in draft form until December 2007.

Draft Connecticut Pre-K through 8 Math Standards

Draft Connecticut Pre-K through 8 English Language Standards

There is a Feed Back Form for both draft standards here.

The biggest change to the standards is the inclusion of "grade level expectations." These are fairly specific and are a big improvement over the old standards. For example, in 2nd grade, students should be able to order simple fractions, tell time to the 1/2 hour, and know the calendar months in order.

The standards are clear. They may not be very high, but they are at least clear.

But there are still too many standards. The mile wide inch deep criticism is even more apparent when you look at each of the tasks to be mastered along the way. Still too much pattern recognition, probability, and graphing in the earliest grades and not enough emphasis on automaticity with basic math facts and fluency with fractions, decimals, and percents in later elementary grades. It's there, but there's no focus and no sense of what is most critical. Because of the sheer number of standards and expectations, how is a teacher or school to wade through them all? If they give equal emphasis to everything, they will not master anything.

So a mixed bag, but a step in the right direction. If you have the time to look at these things, you might consider downloading the feedback form and e-mailing it in to the State Dept of Ed.

After all, how often does anybody in education ask for your input?

curriculum map

I've been hankering after a curriculum map here in IUFSD.

A curriculum map, a scope and sequence, a topic matrix, a handbook, a course syllabus -- anything of that nature.

I want one.

But when Google Images tossed this up under the heading "curriculum map," I had pause.

I mean, suppose I spend the next 6 months hammering the district, insisting that what we parents need to make the preteaching/reteaching Phase 4 life bearable, is a curriculum map.

And then suppose we actually get one.

And it looks like this.

Or like this.

That would be bad.

Steve H & Becky C on "independent study"

from May 18, 2006, reacting to a sample tiered instruction assignment:

Where is the "instruction"? There is none, because Tiered Instruction is in their Independent Study section. I looked through everything they had there and all I ever found (in any section) was a reference to "mini-lessons" given by the teacher. They really have to stop using the word teacher or instructor because that is not what they are doing. Differentiated Instruction with no instruction. How about Differentiated Learning. Or, "You're on Your Own Learning".

This write-up looks more like a grading rubric. Perhaps they grade based on what they expect from a child. I've seen this before in job reviews. If you always exceed expectations, then you can't get much of a raise because you are just doing what you normally do. Are they going to give a "meeting expectations" to an "Above Grade Level" child and an "exceeding expectations" to a "Below Grade Level" child, even though the former student did more and better work? Of course, if you read the information at the site, the assessment is fuzzy and all individual. Once a Below Grade Level child; always a Below Grade Level child.

Even if one really thought that tiered (differentiated expectations) is a good thing to do, the explanation and examples on this web site are just so incredibly horrible.

Just look at this assignment. In eighth grade - "create a flag for Nunavut" is an Above Grade Level task. "Write an essay about what you would do if you were Prime Minister." Do about what? Citizenship? What in particular? "Trace your family heritage and present it." Just in Canada? How far back? Why? I've had assignments like this - poorly thought out and whipped together by lazy teachers.

Not only is it a wrong approach to education, it is done very badly.

here is Becky C:

Not a single one of these activities will be graded for quality. Did the Slow kid write well about his most memorable trip in Canada? Did the Medium kid do a good job representing the life of a PM? Did the Fast kid find the right amount of important details about the creation of Nunavat?

This is about teachers sending their teaching work home for parents to do.

As you might guess, we have had quite a few writing assignments sent home to our family this year from the public school. I have been working really hard to teach my boys to write. I have been feeling bitter about this.

Differentiated Instruction does not happen in real life. It is about as scarce as Direct Instruction.

and:

...if even one gullible parent of a 4th grader directly instructs her child how to write a summary paragraph by holding the child accountable for the quality of their paragraph, which is to say that the paragraph contains the right amount of important details... why, that's one more child who magically shows up in 6th grade already knowing how to write, and one less child that will need direct instruction in writing in 6th grade. Magical!

I've just HAD IT with writing assignments that are ASSIGNED to the student but are not GRADED constructively by the teacher as a means of instruction.

HAD IT HAD IT HAD IT

A mom in town here, who is actively concerned about the writing instruction, told me this week she would like to see her child get back just one paper without the sole feedback being the word "Terrific!" written on top.

Apparently she's decided to throw caution to the winds and skip the part about being careful what you wish for ...

Teaching Textbooks

My sister just switched from Saxon to Teaching Textbooks.

More later --