"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." (Albert Einstein)
"By failing to prepare you are preparing to fail." (Benjamin Franklin)
"You're sending him into a poker game without any cards!" (Bones, Star Trek Into Darkness)
One of the Standards for Mathematical Practice states that mathematically proficient students should be able to use appropriate tools strategically. Under this standard, "Mathematically
proficient students consider the available tools when solving a
mathematical problem. These tools might include pencil and paper,
concrete models, a ruler, a protractor, a calculator, a spreadsheet, a
computer algebra system, a statistical package, or dynamic geometry
software. Proficient students are sufficiently familiar with tools
appropriate for their grade or course to make sound decisions about when
each of these tools might be helpful, recognizing both the insight to
be gained and their limitations."
The tools we teach the students to use, and the tools we make available to them are their 'weapons' to fight their 'battles' in the classroom. I do not mean this negatively. By 'battles', I mean tasks, assignments, assessments, problems, etc. If we do not supply our students with the tools necessary to be successful, they will fail. How ethical is that to set students up for failure?
What tools should we prepare our students with? In mathematics, the most basic tool would be the calculator. Visit Jennifer Henschen's blog entry "Why can't I use a calculator?" which discusses the use of the calculator in the mathematics classroom. As assessments, textbooks, curriculum, and interactive resources go online, students will need access to computers. Visit Casey Crass' blog "Technology Education: Access Denied" for an in-depth discussion on the effects of blocking students' access to online educational materials. Even social networking can be an asset to students as they enter their battlefield (the classroom). Read Jenna Zava's blog about the effective use of social networking in the classroom.
It would be unethical to set the students up for failure by not preparing them for the classroom tasks, activities, and assessments they will face every day. The tools they can be armed with starts with the technology they can carry with them, and use strategically, in their daily 'classroom battles'.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Stoking the Fire
When I was the mathematics department chairman at Overlea High School, the librarian gave me the nickname 'Riggles'. I suppose this was because my last name is Riggs. However, "to riggle" means to clean out the fire-place with the poker. As I continue to analyze education and the Common Core movement, I feel at times that I am riggling current education to make room for the new education and educational approaches included in the Common Core.
Today, I continue to edit the Common Core Algebra 1 curriculum for full implementation this fall. My day began with a meeting to discuss the online platform that will house the new digital curriculum. (This in itself creates a bunch of issues with my curriculum, which perhaps I will save for tomorrow's blog.) After the meeting, upon opening up the Unit 2 file, I realized I left the main textbook resource at home. That meant I would have to use the online version of the text. I hate working with textbooks online. Unfortunately, that is the path it seems that textbook authors and school systems are heading towards. Clean out the fireplace of the old, bulky texts and make room for the new online texts.
This raises a new ethics of technology question with me. I am sure that I am not the only one who hates online textbooks. I find them difficult to read, difficult to get the 'big picture', difficult to follow, difficult to take notes from, etc. Mind you, I am not against e-texts. I LOVE my Kindle app (hee hee...Kindle, fire, riggle... em, sorry). I love being able to read books on my iPad. I love how I can finish one book in a series and immediately download the next book. But, I HATE online e-textbooks. They are cumbersome and difficult to 'leaf' through to find various locations quickly.
So, my question to ponder is this: Is it ethical to expect all students and teachers and school systems to move to the online version of textbooks?
One blogger, Richard Leiter, summarized the article Chronicle of Higher Education: Online Textbooks Fail to Make the Grade (http://thelifeofbooks.blogspot.com/2005/02/chronicle-of-higher-education-online.html). In his review, he states that many publishers are moving to online texts, not for the ease in use, but rather the money that can be made from them. Limiting access within the text, and limiting how many times a student can view the text, are just some of the ways they can wrangle more money from school systems.
School systems, unfortunately, have been tricked into thinking that the e-textbooks would be a cheaper route. Aside from publishing costs that have the potential to never end, and continue to rise, there is the ever-present software, hardware, and device issue. As Joanna Cabot states in her article, Why Online Textbooks Still Don't Work (http://www.teleread.com/textbooks/why-online-textbooks-still-dont-work/), there are many unforeseen hiccups that can happen with online texts. Screen resolution, broadband width, and memory requirements are just the surface of the issues that can happen to a student who tries to access an online text at home. Is it ethical to punish a child because his internet at home cannot support the online text and he cannot complete his homework? Will schools then be expected to provide the adequate resources at home so that students can have equal access to educational resources? Students who do not have the hardware and devices at home will need this provided for them to ensure equity across the school system. That $80 hard-bound text does not look so bad now.
School systems, like Baltimore County, hope that e-textbooks will be dynamic. They can be easily updated and changed, unlike the hardback paper text that is stuck with outdated data and less than modern examples. Interactive resources can be built into the e-textbook to make the text engaging and motivating. Links to online interactives and manipulatives can be provided. Current statistics and data can be referenced. Application to current events can be made. As Leiter states, "The real value of digitization is the interactivity, not the readability." Unfortunately, many e-textbooks are nothing more than textbooks that have been uploaded to the internet. The interactive resources are a separate package to purchase. Baltimore County has already purchased two such text packages: Holt's Geometry and Carnegie's Common Core Algebra 1. The online resources in these text packages are amazing. The videos, lesson links, and interactive manipulatives are top of the line. However, there was a separate price tag for the online resources. Most textbook companies charge each year to access the online resources, rather than one bulk purchase. Richard Mercurio supports this in his article, e-books are popular, but print is here to stay (http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/business/business-news/35441-e-books-are-popular-but-print-is-here-to-stay). He identifies the fact that many e-texts are nothing more than the paper text uploaded online. He further recognizes the software and hardware and access to device issues that schools will face going to the e-text. The costs schools will have to incur to rectify these issues, Mercurio says, are not obtainable at this point.
Am I just an advocate for change, but a proponent of staying with what is already working? Is this an older age that I have grown into... a 'get off my lawn (or hard-bound book)' curmudgeon? When movies went from 'silent' to 'talkies' and went to 'color', the public grumbled at every step. Now, we wouldn't consider going back (except for the rare artistic purpose, i.e. Secret Garden). Are these issues with e-texts just growing pains that we need to see through to the end?
Even with those final thoughts, my question to you remains: Given the costs, ease in use, accessibility, equipment, personal preference... Is it ethical to expect all students and teachers and school systems to move to the online version of textbooks? Please discuss!
Some other resources pro- and con- for the move to e-texts:
Today, I continue to edit the Common Core Algebra 1 curriculum for full implementation this fall. My day began with a meeting to discuss the online platform that will house the new digital curriculum. (This in itself creates a bunch of issues with my curriculum, which perhaps I will save for tomorrow's blog.) After the meeting, upon opening up the Unit 2 file, I realized I left the main textbook resource at home. That meant I would have to use the online version of the text. I hate working with textbooks online. Unfortunately, that is the path it seems that textbook authors and school systems are heading towards. Clean out the fireplace of the old, bulky texts and make room for the new online texts.
This raises a new ethics of technology question with me. I am sure that I am not the only one who hates online textbooks. I find them difficult to read, difficult to get the 'big picture', difficult to follow, difficult to take notes from, etc. Mind you, I am not against e-texts. I LOVE my Kindle app (hee hee...Kindle, fire, riggle... em, sorry). I love being able to read books on my iPad. I love how I can finish one book in a series and immediately download the next book. But, I HATE online e-textbooks. They are cumbersome and difficult to 'leaf' through to find various locations quickly.
So, my question to ponder is this: Is it ethical to expect all students and teachers and school systems to move to the online version of textbooks?
One blogger, Richard Leiter, summarized the article Chronicle of Higher Education: Online Textbooks Fail to Make the Grade (http://thelifeofbooks.blogspot.com/2005/02/chronicle-of-higher-education-online.html). In his review, he states that many publishers are moving to online texts, not for the ease in use, but rather the money that can be made from them. Limiting access within the text, and limiting how many times a student can view the text, are just some of the ways they can wrangle more money from school systems.
School systems, unfortunately, have been tricked into thinking that the e-textbooks would be a cheaper route. Aside from publishing costs that have the potential to never end, and continue to rise, there is the ever-present software, hardware, and device issue. As Joanna Cabot states in her article, Why Online Textbooks Still Don't Work (http://www.teleread.com/textbooks/why-online-textbooks-still-dont-work/), there are many unforeseen hiccups that can happen with online texts. Screen resolution, broadband width, and memory requirements are just the surface of the issues that can happen to a student who tries to access an online text at home. Is it ethical to punish a child because his internet at home cannot support the online text and he cannot complete his homework? Will schools then be expected to provide the adequate resources at home so that students can have equal access to educational resources? Students who do not have the hardware and devices at home will need this provided for them to ensure equity across the school system. That $80 hard-bound text does not look so bad now.
School systems, like Baltimore County, hope that e-textbooks will be dynamic. They can be easily updated and changed, unlike the hardback paper text that is stuck with outdated data and less than modern examples. Interactive resources can be built into the e-textbook to make the text engaging and motivating. Links to online interactives and manipulatives can be provided. Current statistics and data can be referenced. Application to current events can be made. As Leiter states, "The real value of digitization is the interactivity, not the readability." Unfortunately, many e-textbooks are nothing more than textbooks that have been uploaded to the internet. The interactive resources are a separate package to purchase. Baltimore County has already purchased two such text packages: Holt's Geometry and Carnegie's Common Core Algebra 1. The online resources in these text packages are amazing. The videos, lesson links, and interactive manipulatives are top of the line. However, there was a separate price tag for the online resources. Most textbook companies charge each year to access the online resources, rather than one bulk purchase. Richard Mercurio supports this in his article, e-books are popular, but print is here to stay (http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/business/business-news/35441-e-books-are-popular-but-print-is-here-to-stay). He identifies the fact that many e-texts are nothing more than the paper text uploaded online. He further recognizes the software and hardware and access to device issues that schools will face going to the e-text. The costs schools will have to incur to rectify these issues, Mercurio says, are not obtainable at this point.
Am I just an advocate for change, but a proponent of staying with what is already working? Is this an older age that I have grown into... a 'get off my lawn (or hard-bound book)' curmudgeon? When movies went from 'silent' to 'talkies' and went to 'color', the public grumbled at every step. Now, we wouldn't consider going back (except for the rare artistic purpose, i.e. Secret Garden). Are these issues with e-texts just growing pains that we need to see through to the end?
Even with those final thoughts, my question to you remains: Given the costs, ease in use, accessibility, equipment, personal preference... Is it ethical to expect all students and teachers and school systems to move to the online version of textbooks? Please discuss!
Some other resources pro- and con- for the move to e-texts:
Monday, July 8, 2013
How COMMON is the Common Core, part 2
Back on July 1, I posted this question: How common is the Common Core? In other words, I questioned the equity of the Common Core once full implementation hits. In the previous post, I highlighted the possible inequities that stem from states selecting parts of the Core to adopt, writing different curricula, and upacking/interpreting the standards differently.
A different issue came to light recently when I was asked to analyze possible social, legal, and ethical issues related to the use of technology that I may face as an educational leader. I thought of my daughter, who excels at everything she does with respect to school. She is brilliant, literal, gifted, and inquisitive. The Common Core curriculum will be just the challenge she needs educationally. I have absolute faith that she will rise to its challenges and meet them 100%. Her downfall, however, will be the assessments. Not because she doesn't test well; quite the contrary. She tests very well. She can transfer her knowledge and problem solve her way through new situations. Her struggle will be online testing. God bless the girl, but she has absolutely no talents when it comes to computers. She lacks any common sense when dealing with word processors. Somehow, every time she uses my laptop, she uninstalls the wifi. How is that even possible?!? Every time she uses the computer, I have to remind her how to save files in appropriate locations. Online, she has to be shown precisely how to open websites, create accounts, and perform simple searches. No matter how 'easy' PARCC and Smarter Balanced will try to make their online assessments, that will be the block that my daughter hits. The content won't be the issue; accessing and answering assessment questions online will be the issue.
How ethical will it be to test students online if they do not possess the computer literacy needed to successfully answer the assessment questions? We may be dealing with 'digital natives' but that does not mean all students are computer literate and skilled in using the technologies available to them. Students will need to know how to drag and drop, access online toolboxes to highlight, open online calculators, etc. One current blog from Labyrinth Learning highlights this issue: http://blog.lablearning.com/tips/computer-literacy-five-reasons-why-you-should-be-testing/. This blog suggests how to facilitate student learning of computer technology.
Other blogs addressing the issue of online testing and equity include:
So, I ask again...and I hope to get some more comments on this...
How COMMON is the Common Core?
A different issue came to light recently when I was asked to analyze possible social, legal, and ethical issues related to the use of technology that I may face as an educational leader. I thought of my daughter, who excels at everything she does with respect to school. She is brilliant, literal, gifted, and inquisitive. The Common Core curriculum will be just the challenge she needs educationally. I have absolute faith that she will rise to its challenges and meet them 100%. Her downfall, however, will be the assessments. Not because she doesn't test well; quite the contrary. She tests very well. She can transfer her knowledge and problem solve her way through new situations. Her struggle will be online testing. God bless the girl, but she has absolutely no talents when it comes to computers. She lacks any common sense when dealing with word processors. Somehow, every time she uses my laptop, she uninstalls the wifi. How is that even possible?!? Every time she uses the computer, I have to remind her how to save files in appropriate locations. Online, she has to be shown precisely how to open websites, create accounts, and perform simple searches. No matter how 'easy' PARCC and Smarter Balanced will try to make their online assessments, that will be the block that my daughter hits. The content won't be the issue; accessing and answering assessment questions online will be the issue.
How ethical will it be to test students online if they do not possess the computer literacy needed to successfully answer the assessment questions? We may be dealing with 'digital natives' but that does not mean all students are computer literate and skilled in using the technologies available to them. Students will need to know how to drag and drop, access online toolboxes to highlight, open online calculators, etc. One current blog from Labyrinth Learning highlights this issue: http://blog.lablearning.com/tips/computer-literacy-five-reasons-why-you-should-be-testing/. This blog suggests how to facilitate student learning of computer technology.
Other blogs addressing the issue of online testing and equity include:
- http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2013/04/fair-test-testing-resistance-reform.html (Note: this site includes the pitfalls of student computer illiteracy and online testing, along with many other online testing issues.)
- http://www.iddblog.org/?p=63
So, I ask again...and I hope to get some more comments on this...
How COMMON is the Common Core?
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Understanding by Design works!
The passion in this curriculum writing workshop is amazing! Everyone is so excited. One writer just exclaimed, "I have never been in a writing workshop where I know what I am doing on the second day! I have the vision. I can see it!" I was so inspired by her energy and passion I had to post it on my blog.
Her excitement and vision, I know, is because we are developing this curriculum using Understanding by Design. By unpacking the objectives, then developing the culminating events, really put the unit in perspective. You see the end and how to get the kids there.
This is excellent!
Wondering what Understanding by Design is? Check out these resources:
If you are in Baltimore County, ask your administrator if they have a copy of Understanding by Design by Wiggins and McTighe.
Her excitement and vision, I know, is because we are developing this curriculum using Understanding by Design. By unpacking the objectives, then developing the culminating events, really put the unit in perspective. You see the end and how to get the kids there.
This is excellent!
Wondering what Understanding by Design is? Check out these resources:
- http://www.grantwiggins.org/documents/UbDQuikvue1005.pdf
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cagh0H7PPA
- http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/publications/UbD_WhitePaper0312.pdf
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4isSHf3SBuQ
If you are in Baltimore County, ask your administrator if they have a copy of Understanding by Design by Wiggins and McTighe.
Monday, July 1, 2013
How COMMON is the Common Core?
Today was a good start to the new Common Core Algebra 2 curriculum. But, I am left with a question to share with you...
How COMMON is the Common Core?
I have been struck with this up-until-now rhetorical question since the Common Core came out. If states can choose to adopt the Common Core, states can choose what parts of the Common Core they adopt, and states can elect to drop out of the Common Core, just how COMMON will this Core be? For the PARCC assessment, states involved in this consortium can choose certain assessments that they want to give. (Others will be mandated.) Just how COMMON is the assessment for learning the Common Core Standards, then?
Those have been questions I have been muddling around for a while. The "How Common is the Common Core?" question was renewed in my mind as I drove home today. My curriculum writers spent much of the time today unpacking the common core standards for Algebra 2. Why, if the Common Core is so common, are we having to unpack and analyze the standards? We are writing our curriculum using the Understanding by Design approach developed by Wiggins and McTighe. Part of writing a unit and lesson using this design is to unpack the objectives. However, as my writers began to unpack the Common Core Standards, I realized just how vague and open to interpretation these standards are. Throughout the day my writers asked questions like, "How far do we take the content under this standard?" and "What part of this standard are they learning in Algebra 1 and in Honors College Algebra, so that we don't go too far or not far enough in Algebra 2?" and "What exactly is meant by a 'modeling' standard?" These questions echoed in my brain as I drove home. Then, I reflected on the fact that the Maryland State Department of Education developed a Framework for Algebra2, which included cluster notes, skills and knowledge statements, and other such clarifications. PARCC just released spreadsheets explaining the Midyear Evaluations and the End of Year Evaluations, and included in these spreadsheets are clarification statements. Progression Documents have come out of the University of Arizona in an attempt (a beautiful attempt, that is) to explain how the standards span over the grades and courses. If all of these documents, consortia, committees, boards, etc. are coming together to unpack and interpret the Standards, just how COMMON will the Common Core be? A brief glance through all the documents and resources I just listed will show quite a range of publishing dates and the word 'draft' is very prominent on many of them. As I type this, I am reminded of when I spoke with several teachers back in April 2013 at the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics conference in Denver. They claim to have been 'already teaching the Common Core for two years'. Really? How is that possible when the testing consortia are still moving content and Standards around?
So I am left with the question that I hope you will take the time to answer...
How COMMON is the Common Core?
How COMMON is the Common Core?
I have been struck with this up-until-now rhetorical question since the Common Core came out. If states can choose to adopt the Common Core, states can choose what parts of the Common Core they adopt, and states can elect to drop out of the Common Core, just how COMMON will this Core be? For the PARCC assessment, states involved in this consortium can choose certain assessments that they want to give. (Others will be mandated.) Just how COMMON is the assessment for learning the Common Core Standards, then?
Those have been questions I have been muddling around for a while. The "How Common is the Common Core?" question was renewed in my mind as I drove home today. My curriculum writers spent much of the time today unpacking the common core standards for Algebra 2. Why, if the Common Core is so common, are we having to unpack and analyze the standards? We are writing our curriculum using the Understanding by Design approach developed by Wiggins and McTighe. Part of writing a unit and lesson using this design is to unpack the objectives. However, as my writers began to unpack the Common Core Standards, I realized just how vague and open to interpretation these standards are. Throughout the day my writers asked questions like, "How far do we take the content under this standard?" and "What part of this standard are they learning in Algebra 1 and in Honors College Algebra, so that we don't go too far or not far enough in Algebra 2?" and "What exactly is meant by a 'modeling' standard?" These questions echoed in my brain as I drove home. Then, I reflected on the fact that the Maryland State Department of Education developed a Framework for Algebra2, which included cluster notes, skills and knowledge statements, and other such clarifications. PARCC just released spreadsheets explaining the Midyear Evaluations and the End of Year Evaluations, and included in these spreadsheets are clarification statements. Progression Documents have come out of the University of Arizona in an attempt (a beautiful attempt, that is) to explain how the standards span over the grades and courses. If all of these documents, consortia, committees, boards, etc. are coming together to unpack and interpret the Standards, just how COMMON will the Common Core be? A brief glance through all the documents and resources I just listed will show quite a range of publishing dates and the word 'draft' is very prominent on many of them. As I type this, I am reminded of when I spoke with several teachers back in April 2013 at the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics conference in Denver. They claim to have been 'already teaching the Common Core for two years'. Really? How is that possible when the testing consortia are still moving content and Standards around?
So I am left with the question that I hope you will take the time to answer...
How COMMON is the Common Core?
Starting the Common Core Algebra 2 curriculum...
Today is the first day for the Common Core Algebra 2 Curriculum Writing committee. While they are working, I will be finalizing the Common Core Algebra 1 Curriculum. Teachers will be coming in July 18 for training, so it needs to be ready to go!
Can you hear the panic in my voice?
Not panic, exactly. I want to do best by the teachers and students.
Dear Lord, I know you got my back!
Can you hear the panic in my voice?
Not panic, exactly. I want to do best by the teachers and students.
Dear Lord, I know you got my back!
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Big Changes
There are big changes for mathematics in Baltimore County. Common Core Mathematics is scheduled for full implementation in the fall, school year 2013 - 2014. No lower-level courses for students in Baltimore County. The Algebraic Thinking program has been removed from the middle schools. All students will be Accelerated Mathematics Grade 7, projected to be in Algebra 1 by Grade 8.
The mathematics instructor in me is worried. I am fearful for the students that need that extra time to develop their conceptual understandings. I worry for the students whose brains have yet to start thinking abstractly. I am concerned about the students who favor arts and humanities over mathematics and science. In this push for No Child Left Behind, and all children Accelerated Grade 7, will more children be left behind? The expectation is for teachers to differentiate their instruction to accommodate all learners, but are we accommodating all learners by mandating such high academic course expectations at such early grades?
As a parent, I am terrified. I know mathematically, my children will be fine. It is their reading and language arts that have always been the struggle. I am afraid their mathematics comprehension will falter because their reading/language arts education will not be strong enough to accommodate the changes happening in the mathematics realm. From working in the mathematics office, I know the mathematics curriculum is strong - one of the strongest in the state of Maryland. But, the English Language Arts office has gone through so many changes. Leadership has been anything but stable. I am secure in knowing that my children go to a wonderful school with strong, experienced teachers. But will they end up with a solid enough background in reading to help carry them through to Algebra 1 by Grade 8?
I worry.
I worry about the Common Core.
Do you?
The mathematics instructor in me is worried. I am fearful for the students that need that extra time to develop their conceptual understandings. I worry for the students whose brains have yet to start thinking abstractly. I am concerned about the students who favor arts and humanities over mathematics and science. In this push for No Child Left Behind, and all children Accelerated Grade 7, will more children be left behind? The expectation is for teachers to differentiate their instruction to accommodate all learners, but are we accommodating all learners by mandating such high academic course expectations at such early grades?
As a parent, I am terrified. I know mathematically, my children will be fine. It is their reading and language arts that have always been the struggle. I am afraid their mathematics comprehension will falter because their reading/language arts education will not be strong enough to accommodate the changes happening in the mathematics realm. From working in the mathematics office, I know the mathematics curriculum is strong - one of the strongest in the state of Maryland. But, the English Language Arts office has gone through so many changes. Leadership has been anything but stable. I am secure in knowing that my children go to a wonderful school with strong, experienced teachers. But will they end up with a solid enough background in reading to help carry them through to Algebra 1 by Grade 8?
I worry.
I worry about the Common Core.
Do you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)