I wonder what school would look like if we didn’t have set timelines or completion dates for the assessments of students.
This is the thought I wanted to address this year in one of my classes. Instead of having set dates for exams, and a set timeline for project dates, I created a learning environment that is conducive for the needs of every single student in my class.
Let’s first look at the problem of having a timeline for when students must demonstrate their knowledge.
Usually, a teacher makes their year plan around the goal of covering all the outcomes of the course. This teacher must make predictions on how long it will take to cover each individual outcome, which is usually based upon previous years and other students. Test dates are then inserted strategically throughout the year to determine when it is best for the class to demonstrate their knowledge. The problem….the teacher is worrying about the class not the individual students.
I have heard teachers say they teach at a pace such that the “average students” can follow, and my assessment dates are around when the “average student” should be able to demonstrate knowledge. By definition then we are actually pleasing no one! Half of the students will feel this day comes too late as they have already learned the material and could demonstrate it classes ago, while the other half believes that the pace is too quick, and they will need more classes until they are comfortable demonstrating the material. Once again, it is very unlikely that we are meeting the needs of any student by trying to meet the needs of the “average student”.
How have I changed this?
I teach on the same timeline and give students an assessment similar to this. DA with Derivatives , but instead of taking 3 days for the test (1-2 days for review then the 3rd to administer the exam) I provide the student with 1-2 days to complete the assessment. Students who understand the material quickly are able to work on the assessment ahead of time and complete it immediately, while students who need more time can use as much time as possible. There is no set date for completion.
What if a student gets behind?
My first comment would be “Behind what?” Some teachers have this notion that the pace of the class is the pace every student should be learning at, but does this make sense? Remember these unit plans are created before even meeting our students, so how can we make a plan that addresses the individual student? Saying that, if a student is not demonstrating the material at an acceptable standard at a time which you feel is detrimental to learning other outcomes, then instead of giving a bad mark and moving on I sit down with this student at lunch, or after school, and ensure this student learns the material. Is it not our job to educate students? By giving a test, and saying “sorry you haven’t learned everything, but I am moving on anyways” is actually not completing our job.
As teachers we must remember, our class sizes may be large and diverse but this is due to the fact that many individual students are making up this group and our assessment style should not be created to meet the needs of the “average student” but the “individual student”.
Kids blossom at different times. That's just the way it is! http://www.WholeChildReform.com
ReplyDeleteThere is a middle ground...
ReplyDeleteNo deadline on the skill, but a dead line on the product. The no deadlines works well in a traditional class where the assessment is skill based. In a class in which each unit ends with an authentic product no deadlines doesn't work. By having a product due and no deadline it is stressing the fact that the assignment was not authentic. For example, if the students are preparing a presentation for another class and it will be streamed live, the due date is very important.
Keep in mind also that a deadline is not bad unless it ends the learning. You can have a deadline on learning a skill, and then agree to work on it past the deadline if needed. There is some great research that shows that the quality of the work increases with deadlines. As master procrastinators, we tend to put off whatever we can. Whenever someone gives me something to do I always request a deadline, even if they have to make one up! Otherwise I always tell then they will never see what they asked me for.
My first thought is "I should suggest this policy to my boss" but I don't think it will fly.:)
ReplyDeleteMy question is mostly about the logistics involved in this.
Kids do get behind in these subjects and when that happens and unless they catch up they will be sunk very quickly. I don't think anyone here does not understand this. It doesn't take a lot of teaching experience to realize that there is a certain body of work that you have to accomplish and own before taking on the next body of work successfully. In math or in any subject. It is a lot of work to faithfully pass on these subjects to our children.
If the student is taking longer to successfully do each assignment (which is NOT failure in my book) then at the end of the year (even with your extra help) they might only progress through half of this body of work. Do you have them repeat the same course the next year? Don't get me wrong, that is basically what I would do, or better yet, not advance them past their preparedness in the first place. But I am curious on how you would make a "no deadline" policy work from year to year without some real tracking? Naturally, if you put ill prepared students in a class they will miss the deadlines and fall even further behind, that is not a good policy, but that doesn't make deadlines the culprit and I don't see how removing them changes anything. I think the culprit is social promotion, or any form of promotion that puts the student in a class they are not prepared for. It seems that if you don't want students to get in over their heads, which I think we all agree is devastating, then you would need to deal with this via tracking, not by removing syllabi and deadlines which pace each class so that it finishes the body of work it is responsible for (for the sake of the subsequent class).
Also, I agree with Paul, that there is a very real human benefit to deadlines and pushing ourselves. In fact, it probably accounts for the reason that these subjects have any importance at all to humanity, because we pushed them and ourselves to do great things with them.
And finally, in my tutoring experience, I have to admit, that even though I have succeeded in getting piecemeal topics through to students after much extra work, the overall result was just not the same as with a student that got the material at a quicker pace. It seems to me that if you do not proceed at a certain pace in this subject you miss the point of it altogether, even if you are successful with some of the skills. I am not saying that would ever stop me from trying, just being honest, when the process slows too much the student seems unable to see the purpose in it all. Like trying to read a novel but having a lot of difficulty getting through the sentences.
In the end though, I could care less about the grading through the year. I care about the comprehensive assessment at the end that indicates that the student is ready for the next level. Obviously, to get there takes a lot of effort by student and teacher alike.
Robert, I have a question for you then..
ReplyDeleteWhen you are tutoring a student and he/she doesn't understand the topic, do you keep going onto the next topic? I hope not! Would you agree that this would probably put you out of a job? This is what I am fighting against. I would much rather all my students understand topic 1 before moving onto topic 2.
Of course I never said once that I would hold the clas back, in fact I do the complete opposite. I keep going, but I don't penalize those students who take longer to understand the material. I only do this for my course as I am mandated to assess differently in my other courses.
You and Paul state there are " real human benefit to deadlines and pushing ourselves. In fact, it probably accounts for the reason that these subjects have any importance at all to humanity, because we pushed them and ourselves to do great things with them."
I am working on a post to debunk this as well. In short though, by pushing the students forward and allowing for anything less than 100% understanding we are teaching students that is ok to not complete a job fully, as long as it is over 50%. Is that what we want?
I know Robert you have said in the past the competition is a neccessity of schooling, but I believe this is sad belief and one that I will continue to fight. Why can't all students feel success at their own pace? Competition is for the strong, but public education is everyone my friend.
“When you are tutoring a student and he/she doesn't understand the topic, do you keep going onto the next topic? I hope not! Would you agree that this would probably put you out of a job? This is what I am fighting against. I would much rather all my students understand topic 1 before moving onto topic 2.”
ReplyDeleteNo, I don’t keep going, unless it is a topic that I think we can try again after some success with some of the other topics, but to answer your question, no. My whole premise in all of these discussions has been authentic mastery of the material. No other goal but that. And yes, with what I see today, I would be without a job very quickly. I will give you that. But my point was that if I spend that much extra time with a student, rebuilding foundations, even assuming that I am successful, the student will still most often not get through all of the material they need for the next class and how do you deal with that? It calls for tracking, no? I would want the student to start a class ready, not behind all over again.
“You and Paul state there are "real human benefit to deadlines and pushing ourselves ... I am working on a post to debunk this as well. In short though, by pushing the students forward and allowing for anything less than 100% understanding we are teaching students that is ok to not complete a job fully, as long as it is over 50%. Is that what we want?”
I can’t speak for Paul, but that was certainly not my meaning. You think I want kids to fail? Nothing irks me more in current educational policy than the policy to push kids into classes over their heads. That is so far at the top of my list that I can’t even come up with a second issue at the moment. I think I have said that many times. Until a few years ago, I hadn’t given education or pedagogy a second thought since I graduated college many years ago. Like other parents, it wasn’t till my son was old enough for public school that I started looking at education again, and I saw things like “Algebra for All” and the drive to push as many kids into AP classes as possible. And at first, rather naively, I thought that was good, until I started looking at the results. Entire AP classes scoring a “1” or barely 15% of an entire state being proficient in algebra. It is like waking up after 25 years into a nightmare that you keep wishing would end. As a caveat, if you are able to choose your district and school (by moving there) you can avoid most, but not all, of that nightmare.
And how do you say “complete a job fully” or “anything less than 100%”, yet at the same time you seem to be saying that grades and tests are unfair because kids fail? I mean, if you have completed your job fully and not accepted anything less than 100% then the kids should not fail. At least not the final exam.
“I know Robert you have said in the past the competition is a necessity of schooling,”
Actually, I said it was a reality, not a necessity. Saying “necessity” implies we have a choice in the matter. And I said it was a reality of life, of which school is just a part of. Not assigning grades does not change that reality, it hides from it, and when you hide from something you are essentially recognizing that it is there. And there is also a pedagogical purpose for grades as well that I mentioned before. It helps the students find out what they are good at and what they are not good at. Of course, in the current political climate, a student is not allowed to be good at something else, but not math. Kinda sad when you think about it, to be a kid in school now. Part of our problem Dave is that my picture of a classroom in these advanced subjects is 30 to 40 years ago, when most of the kids in the class were ready. The classroom now is much different than that. The kids have been forced there, ready or not. I think, or at least I try to think, that somewhere at the bottom of that was a good intention, but gosh, I surely don’t see it anymore.
Robert I never said tests and grades are unfair because kids fail, I am against grades because of this among other reasons:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/tcag.htm
"Pedagogical purpose for grades...helps student find out what they are good at and not" Ummmm...No! Robert I have abolished traditional grades in my class, yet my students still know what they are good at and not good at.
Grading is something some believe is a neccissity and it is truly a choice in the matter.
Reading your comments I would like to ask you a question, do you believe that these high end math classes are only good for some students? Should school be weeding out those who can't do it?
I don't mean to lead the question but I do want to know your answer. I am one that does not believe there is a "math gene". Of course some students understand it quicker than others but I still believe every student, with the right set of resources, can do it!
My whole philsophy is about that maybe when a student says they "suck at math", they might be saying "I suck at how math was taught to me" or "I suck at demonstrating math on the teacher's assessments".
You must agree that achievement and learning are two drastically different ideas. I have seen students who have deep learning but read a question wrong and their achievement fails.
You talk about tracking and grading as the same thing, can we not track students without assigning grades? I know I can. Why do I have to quantify something to a linear pattern that is not linear at all? I have never met one student yet that learns linearally yet most grading programs assume this is the case.
Pushing students in classes that they are not prepared is a case against grading actually. We are allowing students to pass a class with 50%, and pursue the next level. What I am proposing that we work with students such that this no longer happens, and we work with students until they understand much more than 50%.
Sorry for jumping around, just read your reply and wrote as things came to me.
PS: I do enjoy this debate! Thanks!
"Reading your comments I would like to ask you a question, do you believe that these high end math classes are only good for some students? Should school be weeding out those who can't do it?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I thought that I was agreeing with you that we want kids to succeed. How can they succeed if they are in the wrong class? I can't fathom ANY reasonable excuse for putting a student in algebra before they have successfully completed arithmetic. Or putting a student in calculus before they have successfully completed algebra. What happened to "doing your job" and not passing a kid on until they are ready as you put it? Or is there something more to your theory that you have not told us? An exception clause that allows you to pass on children that understand much less than 50%?
"I am one that does not believe there is a "math gene". Of course some students understand it quicker than others but I still believe every student, with the right set of resources, can do it!"
Well, you will never convince anyone of that without grades or tests. You say you believe that they are all capable and then in the same breath you say though that we can't grade or test them. You don't see the issue there? You can't have it both ways.
And maybe I misunderstand where you draw the line. I think I said clearly enough in one of my posts that I really do not care how you do it. With grades or without makes no difference to me. But at the end of the year, to say you have been successful, the student should do well on a comprehensive mathematics exam at the level you are teaching. So if you think you can get there without grades then all the power to you. But if instead, as I suspect, you are telling me that there is no "there" then how do you expect me to take your theory about getting "there" seriously.
I learned early on in my study of education that there are two very different forms of reform with very different personalities. The first form (what I call classical reform) is generally interested in raising students ability while the second form attacks the notion of ability itself. I think this contradiction, this attacking the very notion of what it is we originally set out to increase, is nothing more than a signal of failure. You cannot talk about increasing ability yet at the same time deny its existence.
I agree with you that we shouldn't be pushing students through classes, but that is my argument against testing. You are changing my words. Again, I am not saying that you should not test students because they don't have the ability, I am saying you should not test students as tests will NEVER be able to allow students to demonstrate their true ability. Remember, no matter what test you give a student it will always be a subset of the domain of knowledge, yet we use this mark to determine the knowledge of the domain not tested.
ReplyDeleteI will never be able to convince anyone of this without grades? I find it truly sad that you believe our society bases our knowledge on a mark. I disagree fully, when I have conversations with parents (without a mark sheet) we dig deeper into the learning problems and solutions than I ever have with a mark sheet.
End of the year summative exams, I may be for due to the fact that the opportunity for learning to occur is gone, but this summative exam should never be used to determine entirely what the student knows, as like I said earlier, it will always be just a subset of the domain of knowledge.
You seem to think that math ability is equivalent to the ability to pass a math test, which I do not agree with at all.
"You seem to think that math ability is equivalent to the ability to pass a math test, which I do not agree with at all."
ReplyDeleteYes, that is what I think, and I am certainly not the only one. How can you talk to an ability yet at the same time say that ability can't be tested? Math, especially the elementary math we are talking about here, is very clear and well described. Math is the worse subject on which to have a "can we test it" debate. It really is. It is simply too well defined. Yet you speak of it as if it is fuzzy and ill defined.
"I am saying you should not test students as tests will NEVER be able to allow students to demonstrate their true ability."
What does this mean? That a student can fail an algebra test yet actually be good at algebra? I assume in any test that there be outliers but I have never seen any widespread evidence of this. And my experience with people after school, in work and in practice, doesn't support such a notion, that droves of good algebra students failed their algebra exams.
I don't see any evidence to support the idea that we cannot test math ability. You state it as if it were common knowledge. Math is simply too well defined a subject. Probably the most well defined subject there is. But let's assume for argument sake that we cannot test math ability. Then how would we even know it exists? Faith? This is what I mean when I say you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about "ability" and then at the same time say its an ability that can't be tested.
Is it possible that when you say "ability" you actually mean "potential ability"? That while a student might fail a test this year they might not fail next year? Obviously a test can only measure realized ability.