This post has been marinating for a while and I’ve been waiting to write it up. State testing is just around the corner and I feel like this is a good time to press send.
One huge emphasis that I see in schools is related to the idea of student growth. This is communicated in schools, during teacher pd meetings, when talking about Hattie’s next best effect-size list and can even be part of teacher evaluation criteria. I see this when school districts use MAP, state testing, or a similar type of tool that measures growth over time.
Schools, teachers, and parents want students to grow. In schools the focus of growth primarily related to academic content. How is that measured? Well that depends on the teacher/district/organization. Some teachers go the route of using a pre vs. post-test. Others give multiple formative checkpoints and then use them along with student reflection components to show growth on the summative. Case in point – there are multiple methods to show student learning and growth.
Here’s my not so small gripe. In an effort to show growth some educators may feel rushed to “get through” as much content as possible. I hear this a lot more in math classes than other content areas at the elementary level. Math has a subjective linear vibe that I think some teachers hold onto. This idea is often reinforced through the structure of some of the adaptive standardized tests that communicate math growth to teachers and school administrators. This can be a bit troublesome if these types of tests are used for evaluation purposes as it brings along additional pressure.
I find students make meaningful math connections when they’re given time to process and apply information. I believe rushing through concepts or stretching to just expose students to higher-level concepts that aren’t part of the lesson isn’t as beneficial as it seems. Moving off the pacing guide or lesson to stretch to other concepts might not be the best idea. When I first started teaching I remember having a teacher talk about exposure all the time. The teacher would say, “If they’re just exposed… then they’ll complete those problems correct and that’ll push them to the next concept.” This teacher was truly amazing (and made some great coffee in the mornings), but I questioned this then and still do now. If we’re exposing students to math concepts so they’ll score well on an adaptive test then that’s another issue altogether.
If a lesson is looked through a linear math lens a teacher might feel as though they should introduce fraction multiplication if students are doing really well with multiplying whole numbers. Is that the right move? Should a teacher stray from the lesson plan to possibly reach a few kids that seem like they’re ready? I’m not saying yes or no because it depends on the station and students, but I’m more in the no camp. Stretching math concepts in a lesson/task for exposure sake doesn’t last.
Last summer I was able to reading Making It Stick and came away with some applicable ideas related to changing my study guides and how retrieval practice benefits those wanting to learn. I find that there’s sometimes pressure to stretch to another concept for exposure sake. Instead of stretching concepts, there should be opportunities for students to enrich their understanding through connections. This looks different and is more challenging in my opinion than just pressing the accelerate button temporarily. I believe that taking time for students to process, reflect and engage in meaningful math tasks will last more than a glimpse optimistic exposure that may soon be forgotten.