Curriculum Redesign

I currently have been to many curriculum redesign talks, symposiums, and discussions and I have never been more excited in my life around educating children in Alberta.  I am truly inspired!! Now of course not all feel this way and so I bring to you "why you should be excited."

First, David Staples from the Edmonton Journal says,

It has had a profound influence, so much so that if you have a child in school after 2016, they will get a fundamentally different education than you got.

This makes me happy.  I am not claiming I received a bad education, but I do feel that I want something better for my own daughter.  Currently we have a model where tests, which are focused on the low level of bloom's taxonomy, are being used rampant throughout our culture.  If you think this should be the norm I bring you a quote from Seth Godin,

As soon as we associate reading a book with taking a test, we've missed the point of literacy

If you are still not convinced that our curriculum needs a change, here is what Jeff Johnson, Alberta's Education Minister, says,

Our [current] packed curriculum stifles creativity in the classroom. It’s too packed. There’s too much stuff to try to get through and it doesn’t allow enough flexibility to individualize learning, which is going to be really key in the future. 

How will the new curriculum work?  Again, David Staples sums it up fairly well when he says,

Teachers will do far less direct instruction so that students can increase their knowledge base. Instead, students will focus on more group and project work. Teachers are to act as guides who assist kids as they explore areas of interest.

Finally, the goal of education will be creativity and innovation and to truly inspire students to learn more.  I think back to my math classes, which I usually finished with 95-100%, was I inspired to become a mathematician, an engineer, a scientist, or even to attend the next level of math?  From some classes yes, but this was due to the excellent teacher I had in front of me, not because of the excellent curriculum. Why did this happen? Well...just to name a few

•  Gr. 3 teachers are having a hard time inspiring students while they teach their 1352 mandated outcomes
• High School Biology teachers are having a hard time bringing in creativity when their curriculum focuses on memorization of terminology.
• Grade 12 teachers are worried around the 50% diploma and finding it hard to bring in innovation to their classrooms.

Since when we can't measure what is important we start making what we measure important.  This is what happened over the last centuries, more and more low level skills became important because that is what we can measure.  Critics, of this change, will use standardized test score data to justify that this change is not excellent for the students in our classes, and my quick response is "how do multiple choice, standardized tests, like PISA show creativity, innovation, interests, and passions of the students?".  See they can't, but they do show how well students can memorize and regurgitate; which is why these critics say these skills are important. 

What does it look like?  Well I have been changing, my own classes, already to meet the needs of the future curriculum and here is a photo which sums it up. 

You can't change the input or the process of education and not expect a different output.  Since the output is different, the way we measure this "new output" must also change.  

Lastly, I ask you...."Were you inspired while you were in school because of what (not who taught) you learned?  Did you want to attend the next level of schooling because of the number of outcomes the teacher covered?  Did you feel that your creativity and innovation was welcomed and could flourish while studying for a 50% diploma?"

If you answered yes to all of these, then maybe I have it wrong and I am simply an anomaly, however if you answered no then I ask you to join me and become inspired with the new curriculum.

References 

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Staples+Alberta+government+plans+radical+rewrite+education+system/9550676/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom's_taxonomy

Stop Stealing Dreams, Seth Godin

http://realteachingmeansreallearning.blogspot.ca/2011/03/dont-teach-that-it-is-not-on-test.html
www.education.gov.ab.ca

Problems with PISA argument

First I don't believe we should put our faith in PISA scores due to the following:

Why my Child won't write optional Standardized Testing
'
As well as my other posts around why standardized testing is flawed.

However, lets for a moment assume that PISA scores are accurate.  We will also negate the fact that Alberta Class sizes have increased, ignore the fact that AISI funding is at 0, and lastly forget that our ESL population is at an all time high.

We shall enter the "Wonderland".

Well, first the argument is that we need to go "BACK TO BASICS" with elementary math classes.  Students should be "Drilled and killed" with mathematical facts and flashcards should be the norm.  Since elementary classrooms have removed these activities the PISA scores have dropped.

Well this is great, however this argument is FLAWED!

See the 2012 PISA test is completed by 15 year olds or Grade 10.  Which means in 2011 they were in Grade 9, 2010 they were in Grade 8..., 2003 in Grade 1.  The Alberta curriculum changed , and had the following implementation years...

Which means...drumroll...these students experienced elementary classrooms teaching the "old" math. Which is, of course, the exact math critics want to bring back.  These students are not the ones we should be looking at, but instead the next data set to come, as these students will be full time "new" math. (Keep in mind I don't think we should look at any PISA scores, but we are in Wonderland)

Next, someone might say that the PISA drop is due to poor retention levels.  As the new curriculum is not allowing students to retain mathematical information in the long term.  This poor retention level is causing the frustration when students try to complete higher level math.

Well..again this is flawed.

Most people have heard of PISA, but have you heard of PIAAC testing? See now this is an exam, also done on the international level, but tests 16-65 year olds.  Keep in mind, all these people experienced 100% "old" math.

Since we are assuming that Standardized test scores are accurate, lets take a look at how our country scored on this...

As you can clearly see Canada was under the OECD average in every age group in Numeracy levels.  Since all these participants took the "old" math, I guess retention was an issue then as well.

What does this mean?

I believe people are following the wonderful quote of Henry Ford

When I asked people what they wanted, they replied with faster horses

What we forget is that sometimes the "Better" system is one which we have never seen or done before, and this is another reason why I support the new math curriculum.

Math in a new setting

Recently I was on CBC supporting the new math curriculum, and was asked what does the "new" math look like?  Here is my interview:


Next, I wanted to show exactly what the new math looks likes:

To start here is an example of what I used to provide to students when I was teaching the "traditional" math class:

Very few students found this engaging, or even worth while to complete.  I would assess a page of homework a day and my class was focused around memorization, and repetition.  This year I had the chance to teach a new course to our school "ESL math".  (English as a second Language Math).  I had students with low English and low math skills to students with low English and high math skills.  Using the philosophy of the new math curriculum here are some things we did.

Instead of writing definitions of words, students had to create a picture that clearly shows you understand the word.  One of my students could recite every line to every "Lord of the Rings" movie, and here is what he did.

Next instead of working on worksheets around surface area and volume, I had students create an object and then calculate the amount of tin foil needed to cover the object.  Feedback was given in the form of how much tin foil they had left over, and needed.  One student, whom was quite tall, wanted to create an object illustrating it is cool to be tall.

Another task was to determine if "Oreos Double stuff" is truly double stuffed.  We figured it is 1.99 stuffed...and I will be writing to Oreos to change the box to "Oreos...ALMOST double stuffed"..haha

Lastly, even for the final exam, instead of a hand written piece students had to create and present their product which illustrates their learning.  Here is an example from another class (as I do this in all my classes)

What becomes of them?

Very simple-engaged critical thinkers.  I realized this when my class discovered that a spherical pop can would be the best can for a constant volume and minimal surface area.  A student of mine showed up the next day and asked "Is this what we were talking about?" and showed me this picture she took at the local grocery store

She had left my class and next day showed up wanting to learn more!  That is exactly why I support the new math!

Why I do what I do

As another course is finished, I always ask for input from my largest stakeholders; My students.  I have removed all "unit exams" and replaced them with projects, and my final exam has now a 45 minute presentation component in which they have to demonstrate their learning of the course.


I have been asked, many times, what is your class average? How well are your diploma marks? As well as other grade-orientated questions.  I usually answer with "I don't know" as these are not the things I focus on.  Below is a picture of the questions I ask my students and their responses. (These are things I care about)

Please provide comments to Mr. Martin around his assessment strategies: (Here are some of the responses)

Mr. Martin's teaching methods are different than the majority of other teachers'. However, I personally believe his methods are an improvement upon the current, old-school teaching methods that are burnt into the minds of, what seems to be, every teacher ever. He provides help when needed and always knows what every individual needs help on. His strategic teaching allows students to get the not only quick feedback on the progress through the course, but also constructive criticism that allows for major improvement. I truly believe in Mr. Martin's way of teaching and would strongly suggest every teacher try. Maybe it won't work for all teachers and all subjects but it worked in this Math 31 class. I not only feel like I know the material taught, but also what the purpose of it and why it was taught. Mr. Martin, you are truly a genius in my books and I wish other teachers could see past the fact that your teaching methods are different and therefore wrong. Thank you for the time, effort, and belief you have put into your teaching.

I liked the way you have evaluated me. Projects and assignments have been tough but that is the way I feel I am learning. Goals and outcomes have been successfully taught through problems and projects. I like the way you mark, and also the fact that you never assigned homework. The time I didn't use to do math homework helped to catch up at other subjects.

If I was the teacher I would have done everything pretty much the exact same. However I would distribute the 45 minute presentation throughout the year because towards the end of the year is busy with other classes and diplomas so it is stressful to do all at once.

I really enjoyed being able to demonstrate my knowledge of concepts over the entire term. I make a lot of mistakes and learn the most by doing this. Mr. Martin's strategy allowed me to fully grasp the concept before I moved on and kind of allowed for a learn at your own pace type thing. I wish that my other classes were more like this because it would allow for me to learn the material more effectively


One other statistic which is not mentioned above is that before I changed the way I assess I would have up to 35% students dropping.  This year out of a class of 25 I only had 2 students drop.  This stat and the ones above are the reason I do what I do, not because of class averages.

A view from another David

Edmonton Journal's David Staples has been writing about 

Grade inflation and flex time harm education, high school teacher warns

and

Alberta schools are no longer the best

 and most recently, 

Students ‘cheated’ by way math is taught, say educators and parents

If you read all these articles, you will notice one important commonality...Staples refuses to write about the "other side" of the story.  Thus I offer a view from another David.

I invite you to read his articles to see one side, and then read below to see the other.

First, Staples wrote:

It’s common for students to get much higher marks in their classroom than they get on their diploma exams...the number of EPSB students who have been graded as “excellent” or “acceptable” on provincewide diploma exams has dropped by 1.9 per cent. In the classroom, however, the number who have been graded “excellent” or “acceptable” has gone up by seven per cent.

He creates an idea that this should not be the norm and the teacher mark should be the same on the diploma.  This is great in theory, but before you nod your head I ask you to remember some minor details: 

• The teacher spends almost 5 months with your child, while the diploma spends 3 hours.  
• The teacher has met, talked, and learned about the interests of your child, while the diploma was made in an office by people who have, most likely, never met your child.  
• Your child is allowed to use real word devices, such as Dictionaries, Apps, Blogs, Web Articles, etc, in the classroom, while the diploma creates a false sense that knowledge is only valuable if you can memorize it, not apply it.
• Lastly, because Staples writes about the Math diploma, the teacher gives various types of questions, in various formats, in various ways to your child, while the diploma only asks Multiple Choice and Numerical Response.

Now I ask, which mark should have more merit?  I pose a different problem... Why is the diploma mark lower than the mark given by the teacher?  Isn't it time we change our standardized assessment strategies? 

Next, Staples writes:

 Alberta students used to be ranked at the top of the world academically, but they are sliding...In 2000, Alberta ranked top worldwide in reading, third overall in science and math. Our teachers and curriculum were top notch and our accountability, through provincial exams, was state-of-the-art....Since then, however, Alberta has steadily dropped. This week when the 2012 PISA results came out, we ranked 11th in math, fifth in reading and fourth in science...

First, I don't believe we can put our faith in a two-hour exam, as my arguments from above still stand, however lets go beyond that.  

Staples will have you believe that this drop is due to the fact that the math curriculum has changed, and even that we need better teachers in the classrooms to be educating your child.  When I read this, I remember back to my Science class when we learned about constant, dependent, and independent variables.

Before we go witch hunting on the teachers, lets remember that these teachers are the same ones who were instructing in 2000.  Unless I am unaware, the graduation requirements to become a teacher in 2000 are the same as they are now.   Thus, teachers would be the constant variable in this. Now that we can't blame teachers, we can ask what changed?

Sure the math curriculum changed, but was there more?  Class sizes over the last year have also increased, funding of AISI projects have been reduced to 0.  I don't understand how if more than one thing has changed (independent variables), how can we point our finger to one of them and ignore the rest? 

My last debate comes from the fact that Staples will have you believe that because we don't teach memorization of math facts students won't understand math.

The reality is that being told number facts, and forced to regurgitate these facts, will not create an environment which is conducive to deeper learning.  The best way a student can understand, not just recite, mathematics is through discovering the facts on their own.  For some, this discovery process can take seconds, while for others it may take an entire class.  The role the teacher plays in this is by acting as a tour guide.  By keeping the students on the “path” towards the discovery, it will ensure that all students create their own individual, and innovative, techniques in learning mathematics. 

I often ask myself, which skills do I want for my own children?  Do I want them to be taught the skills to memorize, and ultimately be able to complete algorithmic tasks, or the ability to create and design which will lead them down a road towards a career with heuristic tasks?  

The reality is that the age old saying that “Practice makes perfect”, does not apply to deep learning in mathematics.  Traditionally, students have been given worksheets which have multiplication facts on them and are given a strict time limit to complete these (named Mad Minutes), but in actuality the mark given on these “Mad” sheets really does not indicate to anyone as to knowledge of the student writing them.  

The weak students truly suffer the most from this model of proficiency-driven, because they find these tasks dull, repetitive, and entirely unusable in the world outside the walls of the classroom.  I would agree that sometimes, knowing facts as the days of the week are important, but these facts should be a by-product of use and application not out of necessity.  

Another fact is, by spending time forcing these facts to be memorized is truly interfering with a child’s innovative and creative ability.  Most of these worksheets require low level thinking and usually can lock the thought process of a student into understanding simple algorithms.  Eleanor Duckworth summed it up the best, 

“Knowing the right answer requires no decisions, carries no risk, and makes no demands.  It is automatic.  It is thoughtless.” 

Is this the environment in which math students should be learning? 

The new math curriculum believes, among many things, that:

·         Students learn by attaching meaning to what they do, and they need to construct their own meaning of mathematics.

·         Students need to explore problem-solving situations in order to develop personal strategies and become mathematically literate. They must realize that it is acceptable to solve problems in a variety of ways and that a variety of solutions may be acceptable.

·         Curiosity about mathematics is fostered when children are engaged in, and talking about, such activities as comparing quantities, searching for patterns, sorting objects, ordering objects,  creating designs and building with blocks

I end with a link to a petition asking the Edmonton Journal to stop writing one sided, bias, articles, and until they do so you agree to stop reading their paper.

STOP WRITING BIAS EDUCATIONAL REPORTS

Henry Ford and Education

I would like to relate this to Education.  Over the last eight years, I have spent hours trying to create "better tests" (faster horses).  In the last two years, I started to question "Is there a limitation to these tests?"

Just like horses, you can create better tests, but there will always be limitations as to what you can do with these assessments.  Whether it is FOR or OF learning, tests, by their design, they can only give us a snapshot as to what a child can do.  As well, most tests limit the amount of knowledge a child can demonstrate to the knowledge of the test creator.

I often wonder, what if educators were like Henry Ford, and instead of making better tests they started working on something different?

Working with this question for quite some time, I have assessed students quite drastically in my class.  I refused to make "faster horses" and instead started working on "a car" for assessment.

First, I personalized assessment in my classes.
Next, I abolished grades in some classes.
Lastly, I even made my final exam a learning experience.

For a more in depth look, you can read through the links, for a quick snapshot here is what I have changed..

• Students should be able to learn, and be assessed, at their own pace.
• Students should be able to be assessed, retaught, and reassessed as many times as needed.
• A multiple choice, numerical response, and written response test does not allow for as much creativity as an open ended, performance based assessment could.
• Student choice, in how to demonstrate their knowledge, can allow students to bring their interests and passions into their own learning.
• Students are more proud of work that is too large to fit on the fridge.

Were there problems with the first ford? Of course!  I do not think that my approach is the BEST, and just as a car still has limitations, so does this new approach towards assessment.  Just like a car and horse, my approach has the same goals as traditional assessments; to teach and assess students.  The difference...students in my class enjoy this new approach, and when I survey them at the end of each course 99% of them prefer this new assessment strategy compared to traditional assessments.

This journey has required me to ponder, as Henry Ford did, if we continue to think in the same mindset as all the people before us, all we will ever have is something a little quicker.  However, if we realize that our past knowledge may be holding us back, then we may create something more effective and efficient than we could ever imagine.

Lastly, as you read this I will leave you with another Henry Ford quote...

WHETHER YOU THINK YOU CAN OR YOU THINK YOU CAN'T-YOU'RE RIGHT- Henry Ford