The lack of curriculum standards in WA worsens with the implementation phase of National Curriculum continuing to be a lukewarm affair. Schools continue to drag their feet with implementation for fear of 'disadvantaging' students that have received an Outcomes based education over the past generation. It is very clear now when comparing to national curriculum standards that WA education in mathematics has fallen behind other states.
Report time has illustrated that next tier of issue in WA during National curriculum implementation. The ongoing issue of students being given A grades that clearly have not met the C grade descriptors continues as schools grapple with how to assess their students. A student that has not passed a test all year is given a C, students that have not reached 75-80% are given A's. We no longer can say someone reaching a certain 'level' is an A (OBE levels have been abolished), nor can we say students are meeting C grade descriptors (these relate to national curriculum and students are clearly not reaching these - and schools are generally resistant to make the required changes to curriculum, homework and discipline policy to reach these new standards). The Curriculum Framework gives little guidance to grading years and assessment. The scope and sequence is a document rarely referred to. The exemplars are sparse and difficult to apply over a range of years where schools vary greatly in materials taught from term to term.
Some areas (including large amounts of algebra and geometry) are missing from student capabilities as they have not been taught to any standard from years 7-9. This is not good enough. I would suggest it is not that students cannot learn this material - teachers lack guidance on what should be taught.
If your student has been taught and is not fluent in linear algebra in year 9 they are not a C student. Ask them to draw y = 2x +1 for you or for the same equation find y if x = 4 or state the coordinate where it intersects with y=-x. Similar tests can be made in quadratics in year 10. Try some basic geometry with traversals and parallel lines. If you really want to see the issues in WA mathematics test order of operations (2 - 4 ÷ 8 * 2 + 3 = ) across year 8 students and staff at a school. I know I did and was horrified.
It is no wonder that students are not getting the intrinsic reward for effort to gain an A (it takes little effort and little demonstrated competence for a student with some ability in middle school classes) and these students cannot clearly relate to their grades - there is simply little direct reward for effort and little real consistency from year to year. I may be a national curriculum skeptic, but we need to escape this no mans land we live in at the moment. Implement it or not - but make a choice and let's get on with it.
Oh - and the answer to the order of operations problem above is 4.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Hierarchy
Schools have usually had quite fixed hierarchy, with about ratios of 1:7. Each 7 people have a direct line manager. In recent years I've begun to suspect that this is breaking down into more flat management structures.
In mathematics departments there are a number of structures that can be put in place. A common and traditional approach is to have a head of department(HoD) responsible for managing staff and curriculum(gaining .2-.4 FTE to do so) and then each year group being allocated to a teacher. The HoD manages performance issues, consistent judgements, liasing with admin and some behavioural issues. The HoD position is a level 3 position of responsibility within a school.
An emerging approach (in the last 10-20 years) is appointing a teacher in charge (TiC) and devolving responsibility for curriculum leadership, staff management and all of the HoD roles to admin staff such as team leaders. TiCs handle budgetary matters and the day to day issues of a maths department. No FTE is applied to such a position and a small monetary amount is given in addition to wages. Although this approach works in the short term on the momentum of past leadership (or if a person is found wiling to work a HoD role under the auspice of a TiC), it falls short when leadership is required to implement change. This model tends to lack responsibility for identifying and rectifying issues, leading to direct confrontation with admin over key issues where normally they would be resolved intra department. It also has the potential for conflict if the TiC is seen to be overstepping the bounds of their role.
A third model, worse than the TiC model is to rely on the professionalism of each individual teacher to self manage and monitor all processes via admin. The main issue with this model(prevalent in very small schools) is that admin does not have the skill to ensure that relevant curriculum is being followed, causing disjunct programmmes from year group to year group. It also causes feelings of isolation and dislocation from the collegiate group.
If regular time is not allocated to making a department work, they can be seen as dysfunctional rather than lacking leadership.
In mathematics departments there are a number of structures that can be put in place. A common and traditional approach is to have a head of department(HoD) responsible for managing staff and curriculum(gaining .2-.4 FTE to do so) and then each year group being allocated to a teacher. The HoD manages performance issues, consistent judgements, liasing with admin and some behavioural issues. The HoD position is a level 3 position of responsibility within a school.
An emerging approach (in the last 10-20 years) is appointing a teacher in charge (TiC) and devolving responsibility for curriculum leadership, staff management and all of the HoD roles to admin staff such as team leaders. TiCs handle budgetary matters and the day to day issues of a maths department. No FTE is applied to such a position and a small monetary amount is given in addition to wages. Although this approach works in the short term on the momentum of past leadership (or if a person is found wiling to work a HoD role under the auspice of a TiC), it falls short when leadership is required to implement change. This model tends to lack responsibility for identifying and rectifying issues, leading to direct confrontation with admin over key issues where normally they would be resolved intra department. It also has the potential for conflict if the TiC is seen to be overstepping the bounds of their role.
A third model, worse than the TiC model is to rely on the professionalism of each individual teacher to self manage and monitor all processes via admin. The main issue with this model(prevalent in very small schools) is that admin does not have the skill to ensure that relevant curriculum is being followed, causing disjunct programmmes from year group to year group. It also causes feelings of isolation and dislocation from the collegiate group.
If regular time is not allocated to making a department work, they can be seen as dysfunctional rather than lacking leadership.
Labels:
daily reflection
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Streaming
From hits on previous pages, this is an active topic in teaching. Leaving teaching college, we were all informed of the negative nature of streaming and how research showed that there was no benefit to students. As discussed previously Hattie's extensive research showed that the benefit was small in mathematics. Yet teachers of mathematics continue the demand for streaming and respond with extensive anecdotal evidence that shows otherwise.
Like many mathematics teachers I now agree with the anecdotal evidence. If we don't stream, the average effect for all students is probably the same or better than streaming. This, for catholic schools is a sensible position, where the rights of the individual can be compromised for the rights of the whole.
Yet, contrariwise, streaming has a detrimental effect on our top students as behavioural and academic requirements of the next tier, take away required teaching time, curriculum focus and effort from the top tier of students. Only a small percentage of experienced teachers can prevent this effectively. My observation is that top students, in an environment of top students, excel in a way that they cannot in heterogenous classes, especially in senior school when maturity kicks in. It is not such a problem in higher SES schools as the gap between higher and lower performing students is much smaller. It makes little sense not to stream in state schools as in upper school our marketing is driven by the performance of our elite (eg in league tables and media reporting) rather than by performing social good (as is the drive in other education sectors).
In low SES public schools, it also raises an equity position, as the brighter students are negatively effected by students that have no wish, need or demand for higher education. For a considerable time, looking after our high performing students has been difficult as demands for average results has driven teaching away from the demands of excellence. Furthermore, the retaining of ill suited students into traditional upper school classes has had a detrimental effect whilst schools devise suitable courses and exit points for these students.
At the other end of the spectrum it also raises equity issues for underperforming students that have little or no hope of meeting C grade standards (without help beyond that which is typically available in a heterogenous classroom).
It is a shame that this is not as readily recognised, as it is only from a drive for excellence does the majority have an aspirational goal and those in direst need receive the attention they require.
Like many mathematics teachers I now agree with the anecdotal evidence. If we don't stream, the average effect for all students is probably the same or better than streaming. This, for catholic schools is a sensible position, where the rights of the individual can be compromised for the rights of the whole.
Yet, contrariwise, streaming has a detrimental effect on our top students as behavioural and academic requirements of the next tier, take away required teaching time, curriculum focus and effort from the top tier of students. Only a small percentage of experienced teachers can prevent this effectively. My observation is that top students, in an environment of top students, excel in a way that they cannot in heterogenous classes, especially in senior school when maturity kicks in. It is not such a problem in higher SES schools as the gap between higher and lower performing students is much smaller. It makes little sense not to stream in state schools as in upper school our marketing is driven by the performance of our elite (eg in league tables and media reporting) rather than by performing social good (as is the drive in other education sectors).
In low SES public schools, it also raises an equity position, as the brighter students are negatively effected by students that have no wish, need or demand for higher education. For a considerable time, looking after our high performing students has been difficult as demands for average results has driven teaching away from the demands of excellence. Furthermore, the retaining of ill suited students into traditional upper school classes has had a detrimental effect whilst schools devise suitable courses and exit points for these students.
At the other end of the spectrum it also raises equity issues for underperforming students that have little or no hope of meeting C grade standards (without help beyond that which is typically available in a heterogenous classroom).
It is a shame that this is not as readily recognised, as it is only from a drive for excellence does the majority have an aspirational goal and those in direst need receive the attention they require.
Labels:
daily reflection
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Retaining specialist teachers during half cohort changeover
Retaining specialist teachers when the half cohort reaches senior school is another challenge for state schools across WA. Small schools will reach critical numbers where staff/student ratios will fall below that required to run core subjects. Where year 11/12 student levels drop below 150, it is difficult to create a staffing profile in low SES schools that allows for students to access a range of stage 3 courses and also importantly for teachers to have access to these classes to ensure career progression.
A simplistic scenario for a maths team in a small school.
15% of a cohort is capable of completing stage 3 courses.
15% of 150 is about 23. Assume all students are in a maths course.
17 in 3AB MAT combined year 11/12 (1 class)
6 in stage 3 3CD MAT year 12 (1 class)
3 in 3AB MAS combined year 11/12 (1 class)
3 in 3CD MAS year 12 (1 class)
To run these courses requires .8 FTE.
Assume all remaining students complete a maths course
62 in 1BC/CD MAT year 11/12 (3 classes)
42 in 2AB/2CD year 11/12 (2 classes)
22 in 2CD/3AB year 11/12 (1 class)
To run these courses requires 1.2 FTE (assumes 1DE/2AB does not run)
3 year 10 classes ~ 90 students
To run this requires .6 FTE.
Total 2.6 FTE (if MAS classes are allowed to run 2.2 otherwise)
This requires loss of a senior school teacher (.6 to be made up by teachers teaching out of area) or a senior school teacher teaching .4 in lower school.
This leaves schools in a precarious position of having limited capacity to overlap in cases of sickness or unexpected absence, limits subject knowledge into the hands of relative few and places load on senior teachers with regard to curriculum requirements such as small group moderation, curriculum monitoring, student preparation for exams and subject guidance.
I think to some degree risk management of increasing dependence of some schools on relatively few staff is an issue that requires urgent attention. Where schools decide to drop MAS subjects, the ability for the school to direct students at earlier stages in preparation for these subjects diminishes as teachers may be unaware of the curriculum links to MAS courses.
When the half cohort passes through and senior school numbers again rise(and we now face the case of multiple half cohorts due to the lack of a decision to move year 7 to high school), we will also face the issue of a need for teachers in senior school, but will lack the numbers of experienced teachers to fill the roles due to teachers in the system lacking opportunity to teach upper school classes during half cohort years.
It is concerning.
A simplistic scenario for a maths team in a small school.
15% of a cohort is capable of completing stage 3 courses.
15% of 150 is about 23. Assume all students are in a maths course.
17 in 3AB MAT combined year 11/12 (1 class)
6 in stage 3 3CD MAT year 12 (1 class)
3 in 3AB MAS combined year 11/12 (1 class)
3 in 3CD MAS year 12 (1 class)
To run these courses requires .8 FTE.
Assume all remaining students complete a maths course
62 in 1BC/CD MAT year 11/12 (3 classes)
42 in 2AB/2CD year 11/12 (2 classes)
22 in 2CD/3AB year 11/12 (1 class)
To run these courses requires 1.2 FTE (assumes 1DE/2AB does not run)
3 year 10 classes ~ 90 students
To run this requires .6 FTE.
Total 2.6 FTE (if MAS classes are allowed to run 2.2 otherwise)
This requires loss of a senior school teacher (.6 to be made up by teachers teaching out of area) or a senior school teacher teaching .4 in lower school.
This leaves schools in a precarious position of having limited capacity to overlap in cases of sickness or unexpected absence, limits subject knowledge into the hands of relative few and places load on senior teachers with regard to curriculum requirements such as small group moderation, curriculum monitoring, student preparation for exams and subject guidance.
I think to some degree risk management of increasing dependence of some schools on relatively few staff is an issue that requires urgent attention. Where schools decide to drop MAS subjects, the ability for the school to direct students at earlier stages in preparation for these subjects diminishes as teachers may be unaware of the curriculum links to MAS courses.
When the half cohort passes through and senior school numbers again rise(and we now face the case of multiple half cohorts due to the lack of a decision to move year 7 to high school), we will also face the issue of a need for teachers in senior school, but will lack the numbers of experienced teachers to fill the roles due to teachers in the system lacking opportunity to teach upper school classes during half cohort years.
It is concerning.
Labels:
daily reflection
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)