Should Albertans panic about math?

This was written by Dave Martin who is high school math teacher in Red Deer. He blogs here and tweets here. This post was originally found here.

by Dave Martin

Edmonton Journal's David Staples has been writing about

Grade inflation and flex time harm education, high school teacher warns

and

Alberta schools are no longer the best

and most recently,

Students ‘cheated’ by way math is taught, say educators and parents

If you read all these articles, you will notice one important commonality...Staples refuses to write about the "other side" of the story. Thus I offer a view from another David.

I invite you to read his articles to see one side, and then read below to see the other.

First, Staples wrote:

It’s common for students to get much higher marks in their classroom than they get on their diploma exams...the number of EPSB students who have been graded as “excellent” or “acceptable” on province wide diploma exams has dropped by 1.9 per cent. In the classroom, however, the number who have been graded “excellent” or “acceptable” has gone up by seven per cent.

He creates an idea that this should not be the norm and the teacher mark should be the same on the diploma. This is great in theory, but before you nod your head I ask you to remember some minor details:

• The teacher spends almost 5 months with your child, while the diploma spends 3 hours. 
• The teacher has met, talked, and learned about the interests of your child, while the diploma was made in an office by people who have, most likely, never met your child. 
• Your child is allowed to use real word devices, such as Dictionaries, Apps, Blogs, Web Articles, etc, in the classroom, while the diploma creates a false sense that knowledge is only valuable if you can memorize it, not apply it.
• Lastly, because Staples writes about the Math diploma, the teacher gives various types of questions, in various formats, in various ways to your child, while the diploma only asks Multiple Choice and Numerical Response.

Now I ask, which mark should have more merit? I pose a different problem... Why is the diploma mark lower than the mark given by the teacher? Isn't it time we change our standardized assessment strategies?

Next, Staples writes:

Alberta students used to be ranked at the top of the world academically, but they are sliding...In 2000, Alberta ranked top worldwide in reading, third overall in science and math. Our teachers and curriculum were top notch and our accountability, through provincial exams, was state-of-the-art....Since then, however, Alberta has steadily dropped. This week when the 2012 PISA results came out, we ranked 11th in math, fifth in reading and fourth in science... 

First, I don't believe we can put our faith in a two-hour exam, as my arguments from above still stand, however lets go beyond that.

Staples will have you believe that this drop is due to the fact that the math curriculum has changed, and even that we need better teachers in the classrooms to be educating your child. When I read this, I remember back to my Science class when we learned about constant, dependent, and independent variables.

Before we go witch hunting on the teachers, lets remember that these teachers are the same ones who were instructing in 2000. Unless I am unaware, the graduation requirements to become a teacher in 2000 are the same as they are now. Thus, teachers would be the constant variable in this. Now that we can't blame teachers, we can ask what changed?

Sure the math curriculum changed, but was there more? Class sizes over the last year have also increased, funding of AISI projects have been reduced to 0. I don't understand how if more than one thing has changed (independent variables), how can we point our finger to one of them and ignore the rest?

My last debate comes from the fact that Staples will have you believe that because we don't teach memorization of math facts students won't understand math.

The reality is that being told number facts, and forced to regurgitate these facts, will not create an environment which is conducive to deeper learning. The best way a student can understand, not just recite, mathematics is through discovering the facts on their own. For some, this discovery process can take seconds, while for others it may take an entire class. The role the teacher plays in this is by acting as a tour guide. By keeping the students on the “path” towards the discovery, it will ensure that all students create their own individual, and innovative, techniques in learning mathematics.

I often ask myself, which skills do I want for my own children? Do I want them to be taught the skills to memorize, and ultimately be able to complete algorithmic tasks, or the ability to create and design which will lead them down a road towards a career with heuristic tasks?

The reality is that the age old saying that “Practice makes perfect”, does not apply to deep learning in mathematics. Traditionally, students have been given worksheets which have multiplication facts on them and are given a strict time limit to complete these (named Mad Minutes), but in actuality the mark given on these “Mad” sheets really does not indicate to anyone as to knowledge of the student writing them.

The weak students truly suffer the most from this model of proficiency-driven, because they find these tasks dull, repetitive, and entirely unusable in the world outside the walls of the classroom. I would agree that sometimes, knowing facts as the days of the week are important, but these facts should be a by-product of use and application not out of necessity.

Another fact is, by spending time forcing these facts to be memorized is truly interfering with a child’s innovative and creative ability. Most of these worksheets require low level thinking and usually can lock the thought process of a student into understanding simple algorithms. Eleanor Duckworth summed it up the best,

“Knowing the right answer requires no decisions, carries no risk, and makes no demands. It is automatic. It is thoughtless.” 

Is this the environment in which math students should be learning?

The new math curriculum believes, among many things, that:

• Students learn by attaching meaning to what they do, and they need to construct their own meaning of mathematics.

• Students need to explore problem-solving situations in order to develop personal strategies and become mathematically literate. They must realize that it is acceptable to solve problems in a variety of ways and that a variety of solutions may be acceptable.

• Curiosity about mathematics is fostered when children are engaged in, and talking about, such activities as comparing quantities, searching for patterns, sorting objects, ordering objects, creating designs and building with blocks

I end with a link to a petition asking the Edmonton Journal to stop writing one sided, bias, articles, and until they do so you agree to stop reading their paper.

STOP WRITING BIAS EDUCATIONAL REPORTS

Thank God for standardized test scores

Because of the Fraser Report and standardized testing, I now know the name of the worst school in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and third worst school in the entire province.

The name of that school is Braemar.

So what's wrong with Braemar?

They have low standardized test scores.

Things are so bad at Braemar that The Fraser Report gave them a ZERO out of 10 in comparison to other Edmonton schools and ranked them 273 out of 276 in Alberta.

Oh by the way, 100% of the students who attend Braemar are special needs and are either a pregnant or parenting teen ranging from 13 to 19 years of age. That's right Braemar School, which is championed by Edmonton Public Schools, is charged with the sole purpose of providing an education in a supportive environment exclusively for pregnant and parenting teens.

However, don't let students like Kayley Foerster who was so determined to get her diploma that she wrote it while in labour with her son Peighton distract you from what's really important here -- Braemar has low standardized test scores.

It is critically important to not let the messy and human context of Braemar's students get in the way of accountability. As an Albertan and a tax payer we all have the right to know about Braemer's poor performance for two reasons. One, it helps parents choose; two, it helps schools improve.

Thanks to the Fraser Report and standardized test scores, Albertans are equipped with the information they need to make damn sure that if their teenage daughters get pregnant, they will not attend Braemar; and all those pregnant or parenting teens that feel so frightened and alone will know not to bother enlisting Braemar's help in getting extra support in the form of day care, financial advice and assistance, medical expertise and help with career choices and post-secondary admittance.

And now that the teaching staff at Braemar are aware that the rest of Alberta knows of their low scores and abysmal rank, they can redouble their efforts to improve their pregnant and parenting students' test scores by working with schools who have higher standardized test scores and rank. The bad news is that 6 out of the Fraser Reports top 10 schools have reported 0% or not applicable for their special needs population, and only 1 school has more than 10%.

But there is good news, like Braemer School, Rundle Academy is only one of two other schools that also report that 100% of their students are special needs. As an Albertan and a tax payer, I demand to know when the Braemer staff plan on visiting Rundle Academy or when staff from Rundle Academy will visit Braemer so that I know that they are collaborating in an effort to make Braemer better. After all, this is one of the very reasons we have The Fraser Report and standardized tests -- so public schools like Braemer and private schools like Rundle work together.

Rundle Academy is a private school that provides specialized education for students with diagnosed learning disabilities, and like Braemar, Rundle Academy also has a selection process. While Braemar's admissions policy only accepts pregnant and parenting teens, Rundle Academy also has an application procedure that includes submitting:

• Completed application form
• Copy of the student's birth certificate
• Recent photograph of the student
• Last two years of student's final report card where applicable
• Most recent Provincial Achievement test results where applicable
• $100 non-refundable application fee
• Copy of the student's psych-educational evaluation, if applicable
• SSAT results or the date on which your child will write the exam

Oh by the way, grade 11 and 12 offered at Rundle are limited to university prep courses; but the good news is that further assessment is usually waived if the students' academic records indicate that they have the necessary potential and academic background to be successful. After all, Rundle Academy takes pride in only accepting those students who are a good fit for their school.

Oh and one more thing, tuition for junior and senior high students at Rundle Academy ranges from $11,500 to $13,400 per year. Braemar, on the other hand, is a public school so there's no tuition.

Thank God for the Fraser Report and standardized test scores because without them, schools like Braemer and Rundle Academy would never work together to make Alberta schools a better place for kids...

Let's pause for a second. Does any of this bother you? Because it's starting to bother me...

Does anyone think for one-second that the context of the students' needs or the educators' teaching assignments at Braemar have much to do with the kinds of services offered or not offered at Rundle Academy?

Can you see how two schools with 100% special needs might have the responsibility of educating two very different groups of students? How does it help the citizens and tax payers of Alberta to compare a private school that has an admission's policy that determines if students are a good fit if they have academic records and background that indicate potential success and charge a tuition fee over $10,000 with a public school that educates pregnant and parenting teens for free?

And even if Braemar did have something in common with Rundle Academy, does anyone believe a private school in Calgary would utilize their time, effort and resources to help a public school in Edmonton?

I have absolutely no idea how this misuse of data could be sold as a public service.

People who need standardized test scores like to say that they offer accountability to the public. But this is asinine. Accountability is really about transparency, but there is absolutely NOTHING transparent about ranking and rating schools by their standardized test scores. Reducing the magnificently messy stuff that schools do everyday to a test score or grade conceals far more than it ever reveals and therefore is not transparent or accountable -- it's merely convenient.

If all you know about a school or student is their standardized test scores, then you don't know very much. Let me be crystal clear, I've never been to Braemar School or Rundle Academy, but I bet the teachers there are both working very hard to do right by their students and provide them with the best education they can. I won't presume to pass judgment on either Braemar or Rundle. And that is exactly what is so wrong about standardized test scores and The Fraser Report -- with them, people who have never stepped foot in either school can claim to know enough about them to rate and rank them. This is irresponsible and flat out unacceptable.

As tragic as it is that Braemar School has been so wrongly judged for its low standardized test scores, remember that every school suffers from this primitive form of information and misuse of data. Governments that hand over standardized test scores to third party organizations so that they can pit schools against one another by ranking and rating them is the equivalent of handing someone who is drunk the keys to their car, and the school board associations that support the government's release of this data are accomplices to all this misuse. Just as institutions that sell their standardized test score snake oil as a public service should be held accountable for deceiving the public so too should the governments that provide the data and the school board associations that support it.

Michael Thomas, a co-author of The Fraser Report's Report Card says that "no one has ever shown me how it's damaging a school." I've gone through their report card and I noticed that you can contribute to the development of the Report Card by contacting Michael Thomas at 416.363.6575 with your suggestions, comments and criticisms. 

After hearing about how Braemar has been treated by the Fraser Report, I am going to call Michael right now and tell him why I think their misuse of standardized test scores is damaging to schools. Will you?

* A few edits were made to clarify confusion between Rundle College and Rundle Academy.

University of Saskatchewan waives provincial and diploma exams

The University of Saskatchewan now waives provincial and diploma exams for admission and scholarships.

Their rationale goes like this:

• We don't want to penalize you if you have a bad test day.
• We don't believe your future should ride on the success of one set of tests.
• We have confidence in our teachers and trust their ability to assess students.

For Alberta, Northwest Territories and Nunavut Students:

• Diploma exam marks are no longer required! We will take the mark that workds to your best advantage - your in-class mark or your diploma exam mark. It's just that simple. So when you write your diploma exams, don't get stressed! We'll look at your entire academic career, not just those three intense hours. We're the first university in Canada to do this - just another University of Saskatchewan advantage.

This is yet another example of how post-secondary institutions are grasping how little test scores actually tell us about a learner and that while some might believe tests have their place, we must all remember to keep them in their place.

What effect will this move have on other colleges and universities in Canada?