Flipping the Switch

Flipping the Switch:  Maybe Not

I was reading an article on line the other day from Education Week on the Common Core that really forced me to re-evaluate my thinking.  The author of the article, Joellen Killion, distinguishes between two types of change initiatives.  The first she describes as light-switch changes, which are "carefully orchestrated and designed, and occur with the flip of a switch."  She goes on to state that these types of changes usually apply when the problem is clearly definable, the solution is equally definite, advance preparation for the change happens and the change happens on a specific date.  For example, when a company decides to upgrade a software the company utilizes.  In this example the problem and solution are clearly defined and the IT department is able to do some advanced preparation work and the system gets updated on a particular date.  The second type of change she refers to is an adaptive change.  According to Killion, "adaptive change requires learning and adaptation, typically over a long period of time, because the problem solution and means to implementation are unclear and frequently evolve and mutate with progress toward the goal."  It is her contention that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are an adaptive change.

As a curriculum supervisor, I realized my thinking had become locked on a focus of "full-implementation" by the 2013-2014 school year.  While that is when the state will start assessing solely based upon the new standards, and when the next generation assessments are slated to begin the necessary changes in pedagogy,  curriculum writing and student learning will take much longer.

My Standards

When I was in the classroom, I always started my unit and lesson planning with the same question, "what are the standards that I am responsible for teaching and for my students learning?"  On the surface, this seems like a good approach.  If I teach what I am supposed to, and so does everyone else, then the students will get what they need.  But what happens if I don't, or you don't, or they didn't get it the year before, or I have a learner that already knows it?  This is when knowing my standards is not enough.  At a bare minimum, I need to have a general understanding of the standards one grade above me and one grade below me.  If not, how can I effectively remediate and enrich?  The deeper my understanding becomes of the standards above and below me, the better I understand how my teaching fits into the larger progression of learning we expect of our students.

As discussed in my previous post, the CCSS for Math were constructed on two main themes of Focus and Coherence.  The standard developers wanted to ensure that there was a logical progression of skills and knowledge targeted at each grade level, and that they built upon each other in order to develop deeper understanding in students.  The CCSS for ELA share a similar philosophical underpinning, as evidenced by the Anchor Standards that define college and career readiness.  Each anchor standard is then "broken down" into a progression of skills and knowledge from Pre-K on up that build towards that anchor standard.  What appears to be a slight shift in standard design, has enormous implications on defining "curricular proficiency" for teachers moving forward.  This inherent expectation that teachers know and understand the curriculum in a way that extends beyond their classroom, and that they are able to move students along that continuum flexibly, requires in-depth study that can not happen with the flip of a switch.  

My Teaching

I have heard several times, mostly from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, that the standards do not dictate how we should teach.  While they are technically correct that the CCSS do not get into how we are to teach, the expectations for student performance will undoubtedly force us to examine long held beliefs about our teaching.  For example, can a student make sense of problems and persevere in solving them (Standard for Mathematical Practice # 1) if their schooling consists of carefully constructed questions and activities that that can be solved using a predictable solution pattern?  Can she construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others (Standard for Mathematical Practice # 3) in a classroom where the teacher does all the questioning?  Will he write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence (ELA Writing Anchor Standard # 1) if he is asked to write a letter to the principal persuading him to add another day of pizza to the lunch menu?  What we are going to see in the years ahead are changes in our teaching practice that best meet the higher cognitive demands set forth in the new standards.

These two videos show, from people much smarter than I, how we might approach this in math.  Both speak to the need to present students with "messy" problems that require investigation, perseverance and require students to struggle in productive ways.

Surely, if the types of changes articulated by these gentleman are to become pervasive in our schools we must take a long term view on the implementation.  Deep substantive changes like this, that challenge not only our own deep held beliefs about teaching and learning, but those that have been institutionalized for over 100 years, can not be expected overnight.  It will require years of practice, study, experimentation, failure and growth.  However, we must begin now.  We have to be willing to examine our beliefs, challenge long held assumptions, study research, learn from each other and open our classrooms and planning to others.

Our Light

In the spring of 2014, we will likely have a new assessment.  Full implementation of the new standards will be expected.  Will things be entirely as we want them to be?  Not likely.  Will we be on a path towards that point?  It is entirely up to us.  All I know for sure is that we will need to do this together.  Teachers will need to learn, share and solve problems together.  Leaders will need to support teachers with time, resources and professional development.  Gone are the days of teacher isolation and insulation.  

At some point, in the not too distant future, I believe we will all look around and the light will be on.  No one will be able to point to the time when we flipped the switch.  It will be unclear as to when all the wiring was completed or when the bulb was screwed in.  But there we will be, standing in a lit room and before us will sit the future.  

Introduction to Math

Anyone who has taught mathematics in the state of Massachusetts (or any other state for that matter) within the past 20 years has long ago realized that the previous mathematics frameworks asked teachers to cover far too much material.  It has been nearly impossible for educators and curriculum writers alike to determine the best path towards achieving what, from the outset, has been an impossible goal; a complete coverage of the standards with student learning as the ultimate barometer for success.

Fortunately the authors of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics heard this message loud and clear. They made a concerted effort to bring more focus and coherence to the standards.  In the introduction to the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for Mathematics (2011) it is stated that, "For over a decade, research studies of mathematics education in high-performing countries have pointed to the conclusion that the mathematics curriculum in the United States must become substantially more focused and coherent in order to improve mathematics achievement in this country.  To deliver on the promise of common standards, the standards must address the problem of a curriculum that is 'a mile wide and an inch deep.'"

Focus and Coherence

What is it that we are talking about when we use these two terms?  The developers of the standards recognized that previous standards here in Massachusetts, and in states across the nation, have addressed a wide variety of disjointed standards.  Coherence speaks to the interconnected nature of the new standards. The developers made a deliberate effort to build a logical progression of skills and knowledge into the standards as student progress from one grade to the next.  We can see an example of this when we examine the Operations and Algebraic Thinking domain.  In kindergarten students are asked to " represent addition and subtraction with objects, fingers, mental images, drawings, sounds...(K.OA.1)" and then to "solve addition and subtraction word problems, and add and subtract withing 10, e.g. , by using objects or drawings to represent the problem (K.OA.2)."  In the first grade this progresses to "add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10.  Use mental strategies such as counting on; making ten; using the relationship between addition and subtraction; and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (1.OA.6)."  The idea of addition and subtraction is further developed in second grade.  The demand for fluency is increased,  "Fluently add and subtract within 20 using mental strategies.  By end of Grade 2, know from memory all sums of two one-digit numbers (2.OA.2)."  Coherence is also developed within each grade level.  In second grade fluency of facts is then applied in standard 2.OA.4, "Use addition to find the total number of objects arrange in rectangular arrays..."  This standard is also, no-so-coincidentally, coherent to the third grade standards for multiplication (rectangular array models for teaching multiplication).  This arraignment of concepts continues throughout the entire document.  The standards are developed in a way to model the thinking the developers are hoping to instill in students.  A student that sees the connections between mathematical ideas and understands the hierarchical nature of math.  The strong foundation for this development begins in Pre-K.  

Focus within the standards is addressed in the limiting of concepts students are meant to learn.  Focus is built upon an underlying goal of a greater amount of mastery of fewer, albeit powerful, mathematics concepts.  On the first page for each grade level within the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (adopted into MA Frameworks as is) there are no more than 4 areas identified for instructional focus.  They pinpoint  critical areas upon which teachers should spend the vast majority of their instructional time.  We should be using this page to help us in curriculum writing, unit planning and lesson planning.  Unfortunately, these pages are often overlooked as teacher dive into the content specific nature.  I strongly urge teachers to spend time with this introductory page. Actually, I would ask that not only do we examine this page for our grade level, but the one above us and below us as well  This will give us a deeper understanding of where our students are coming from and where they are going.

The concepts of Focus and Coherence are further accentuated in the Standards for Mathematical Practice which will be a topic for later posts.

From the Source

The videos embedded in this blog are from the Hunt Institute.  They interviewed the authors of the Common Core State Standards on a variety of topics.  These summarize what I have tried to spell out on Coherence and Focus.  Enjoy!