Actually, two classes are English and one is officially called "credit recovery." In this district today is actually Day 113 -- and unlike comprehensive high schools, the continuation school is actually based on trimesters. And so assignments and grades are due soon. In all three classes, I strive to make sure that the students do assignments on Chromebooks rather than say "I'm done" and play games.
To this extent, third period "credit recovery" is actually the best class of the day, with second period English the second best. This is also how last Thursday's sub ranked the three classes, so it's clear that fourth period English is the most talkative and easily distracted.
Lesson 12-2 of the U of Chicago text is called "Size Changes Without Coordinates." In the modern Third Edition of the text, size changes without coordinates don't appear on their own. The first lesson of the new text, Lesson 12-1, corresponds more closely to Lesson 12-3 of the old text. The opening dilation activity of the old Lesson 12-2 is nonetheless squeezed into the new 12-1.
In past years I've called this an "activity," but in reality it isn't. The main lesson is all about how to perform dilations without coordinates, which is exactly what this worksheet does. So don't worry -- I'm not breaking my promise by posting two "activities" on consecutive weekdays, since what I'm posting today is a lesson, not an activity.
This is what I wrote last year about today's lesson (and last Friday's activity):
https://mylifeasmissblog.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/5/
Here's what the author Olivia writes about her activity:
At the beginning of the week, I assigned a dilation project in geometry. Students were to pick a picture from the internet, draw a grid over top of it, then redraw the picture following the grid on a larger piece of paper. My district does not have an art program, so many of the students are definitely not comfortable when it comes to art. I heard a lot of negative comments that day from students saying they sucked at drawing, it was going to turn out horrible, and many pleas of students asking me to “please not hang them up!” They were especially adamant that they WOULD NOT be putting their names on their pictures. I told them it would be okay and they would turn out great. I said that if I could do it, anyone could do it! Well I gave them 2 full days of class time to work on their posters. I hung up a couple of the posters after the first day, because two of my students finished theirs by working on it in study hall. The next day, my other classes were all asking who drew what. I said, sorry guys this class wanted to remain anonymous. Well, my geometry class came in later in the day. I told them all that people kept asking about who drew what but I did not rat anyone out about who drew what. Then, a very exciting thing happened! Students started saying, “Mine looks so good, I’m definitely putting my name on mine” or “I want everyone to know who drew mine.” They told me that it wasn’t as terrible as they thought it would be and it was actually fun. I loved seeing students so excited and proud of their own work. It always makes my day brighter when students realize just what they can accomplish. Everyone ended up putting their names on their finished products, and I was left as one happy math teacher.
Well, there's nothing stopping us from assigning this activity today. I obtained the pictures simply by performing a Google image search for "cartoon character" -- those just happened to be the ones that came up.
There's one thing about activity -- it works better on a coordinate plane. But note that Lesson 12-2 of the U of Chicago text uses Slope and Distance Formulas just to prove that the mapping from (x, y) to (kx, ky) is a dilation with scale factor k.
Today I'm making yet another traditionalists' post. That's because once again over the weekend, you know who posted and you know who commented.
But let me start with some other news. The Oakland teachers strike has been resolved. Here are the details of the settlement:
https://edsource.org/2019/tentative-agreement-reached-in-oakland-unified-teachers-strike/609342
https://edsource.org/2019/lessons-from-the-los-angeles-and-oakland-teacher-strikes/609371
As the two links above imply, the issues in both strikes are virtually identical -- as are the details of both settlements. Teacher pay in both districts will slightly and gradually increase over the next few years, while class sizes in both districts will slightly and gradually decrease over the next few years.
Notice that Barry Garelick, a Northern Californian, doesn't mention the strike on his blog. I know that his district is Oakland, but I wondered whether he might blog a little about the strike anyway.
On the other hand, another blogger I sometimes mention in traditionalists' posts is Darren Miller, Right on the Left Coast.
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2019/03/how-much-of-this-problem-might-be.html
This is a tricky one for a poster like Miller. On one hand, Miller is a teacher, and so a win for the union ought to be a win for Miller. On the other hand, Miller opposes unions and cheers on the Janus decision, freeing him from paying union dues. (Recall that the word "right" in the title of this blog really means "right-wing.")
Well, here's what Miller writes:
How much of this problem might be related to lack of discipline and safety in schools, as opposed to just pay?
Here he implies that perhaps he might support unions more if they were focused less on pay raises and more on the issue he refer to here -- "lack of discipline and safety." (Nowhere in the Edsource article does it mention this issue as part of the settlement.)
Now Miller quotes the SF Chronicle:
There is a crisis in Oakland Unified School District — educators are leaving our classrooms at an alarming rate. Each year, we lose more than 300 teachers from Oakland schools. At the start of the school year, we had 570 teacher vacancies, mostly in our flatland schools with high concentrations of low-income black and brown families. As a result, every year, we see our schools scramble to get adults in classrooms, while students don’t have the supports needed to succeed.
Unfortunately, race and ethnicity often appear in many traditionalists' debate articles. And once again, the juxtaposition of this article with Miller's mention of "lack of discipline" asks yet again that controversial question, "Can we maintain discipline and safety in a racially neutral manner?" (Miller writes about this in another post earlier today -- I don't link to it, because it takes us away from the Oakland strike.) This and the tracking debate are the two issues where race keeps on coming up rather annoyingly.
Before we leave Miller's blog, I notice the following comment:
Steve USMA '85:
Amazing what they "know" without a hint of empirical evidence.
Notice that this "Steve" isn't necessarily the same as SteveH from Garelick's blog. But the two Steves sound eerily similar -- both of them accusing their opponents of making grand claims without enough valid evidence. The difference is that SteveH's focus is more pedagogical, whereas Miller's Steve is writing about the strikes, finances, and solutions.
OK, let's get to Barry Garelick:
https://traditionalmath.wordpress.com/2019/03/03/tales-of-professional-development-dept/
But as usual, the main commenter is SteveH:
SteveH:
This reminds me so much of what my son’s early grade school teachers said about differentiated instruction – or rather, differentiated learning. “Success” without mastery – “answer getting”. The onus was on the kids and the parents. The assumption is that their process will do the job and if there is failure, then it doesn’t belong to them. Meanwhile, more and more parents take up the slack at home and set higher expectations. The teachers point to those kids as proof of their process.
The assumption made by traditionalists is that their students will do the job (of doing the p-sets) and if there is failure (that is, they leave the p-sets blank), then it doesn't belong to them. And the traditionalists point to those kids (the ones helped by parents/tutors) as proof of their process -- but of course, they only do the p-sets because their parents/tutors are sitting inches away. Hidden away in a classroom of 30 or more, these same students would leave the p-sets blank.
SteveH:
EDIT: I've been editing my posts this week to reflect changes in how I teach similarity this year.
Actually, I've decided to keep the old worksheet, but there's one more link from over the weekend that I want to include in this traditionalists' post.
https://www.joannejacobs.com/2019/03/csu-remedial-reforms-boost-math-pass-rate/
I wasn't going to link to this, but I couldn't resist it since several traditionalists are in the comments thread, including two (Ze'ev Wurman and Darren Miller) already appearing in this post.
I recognize this picture, since Joanne Jacobs linked to it a little more than a year ago. It's all about remedial math classes at college (specifically the Cal State University system):
Cassondra Lochard teaches a “corequisite” algebra class that includes remedial material at Cal State Dominguez Hills in 2017. Photo: Larry Gordon/EdSource
(Ah yes, I remember linking to this Edsource photo in another old traditionalists' debate post.)
Let me just quote the traditionalists' comments:
Darren Miller:
I’ll admit to being suspicious until I learn *much* more detail about what they’re doing. Too many times these Shangri-La discoveries turn out to be Potemkin Villages.
Ze'ev Wurman:
Same feeling here. Overnight huge jumps in passing rates, and for courses that are supposed to be more demanding — non-remedial vs remedial — are deeply suspicious.
We haven't heard from traditionalist Bill in a while:
Bill:
Applied stats is a course which most STEM majors are required to take, but even this course requires a solid understanding of Algebra in order to succeed. Additionally, if these students are going to move farther up the STEM track, it will be interesting to see if they can complete the harder math and science courses (doubtful at best given the SAT scores in math being reported).
Once again, Bill tells us that "Algebra" is required for statistics -- but I still don't know whether he means first semester Algebra I, second semester Algebra II, or somewhere in between. (For example, do we really need conic sections or trig to understand stats?)
Finally, a new traditionalist, pouncer:
pouncer:
Unfortunately, race and ethnicity often appear in many traditionalists' debate articles. And once again, the juxtaposition of this article with Miller's mention of "lack of discipline" asks yet again that controversial question, "Can we maintain discipline and safety in a racially neutral manner?" (Miller writes about this in another post earlier today -- I don't link to it, because it takes us away from the Oakland strike.) This and the tracking debate are the two issues where race keeps on coming up rather annoyingly.
Before we leave Miller's blog, I notice the following comment:
Steve USMA '85:
Amazing what they "know" without a hint of empirical evidence.
Notice that this "Steve" isn't necessarily the same as SteveH from Garelick's blog. But the two Steves sound eerily similar -- both of them accusing their opponents of making grand claims without enough valid evidence. The difference is that SteveH's focus is more pedagogical, whereas Miller's Steve is writing about the strikes, finances, and solutions.
OK, let's get to Barry Garelick:
https://traditionalmath.wordpress.com/2019/03/03/tales-of-professional-development-dept/
Last year, the principal of the school where I taught wanted me and the other math teacher to attend six all day professional development sessions over the course of the school year. According to the flyer advertising the PD the sessions encouraged “collaboration” amongst the math teachers in the county where I taught. It was to be facilitated by someone who believes that students who are faltering but need just a little more time to get it are lacking some key bit of information. Her solution is “just in time” learning in which the problem dictates what the student needs to know in order to solve it. I don’t think much of “just in time” learning and have written about it elsewhere so will spare you any rants about it.
This post is all about Garelick's PD session -- how he tried and failed to get out of it. He ended up challenging the leader of the PD session:
She began our two-hour collaboration by talking about how the state tests that are aligned with Common Core in California are not about “answer getting” anymore—rather students must explain their answers. The tests now evaluate whether students are able to see problems in more than one way. Which raises the question of why a student is deemed to lack “deeper understanding” if they get the answer in one way, but cannot show additional ways. She said the tests aim at certain “targets” which are more the Common Core Standards of Mathematical Practice (SMP) than they are of Common Core’s content standards. The SMPs are generic competencies like “persevere in solving problems”, “find structure and repeated reasoning in problems”: things that would come about anyway from practice of content, rather than trying to develop “habits of mind” outside of the context of content.
And he continues:
She began our two-hour collaboration by talking about how the state tests that are aligned with Common Core in California are not about “answer getting” anymore—rather students must explain their answers. The tests now evaluate whether students are able to see problems in more than one way. Which raises the question of why a student is deemed to lack “deeper understanding” if they get the answer in one way, but cannot show additional ways. She said the tests aim at certain “targets” which are more the Common Core Standards of Mathematical Practice (SMP) than they are of Common Core’s content standards. The SMPs are generic competencies like “persevere in solving problems”, “find structure and repeated reasoning in problems”: things that would come about anyway from practice of content, rather than trying to develop “habits of mind” outside of the context of content.
And he continues:
I was doing a good job of keeping my mouth shut, but at this point I could contain myself no longer and asked “Could you define what a ‘rich task’ is?”
She answered as follows: “It’s a problem that has multiple entry points and has various levels of cognitive demands. Every student can be successful on at least part of it.”
In other words, it's a task for which there's less need to tell students "You're wrong." Once again, many students give up as soon as they here those tragic words, and so any problem which reduces the need to say those words is a good one. As usual, the traditionalists never realize this.
But Garelick, convinced that traditional math is superior, is frustrated by the whole training session:
“On the one hand I’m told by the administration that I’m doing great, and I hear from parents that I’m doing great,” I said. “But then I’m told that I MUST attend this PD. Is there something about my teaching that’s lacking? What is this about?”
But Garelick, convinced that traditional math is superior, is frustrated by the whole training session:
“On the one hand I’m told by the administration that I’m doing great, and I hear from parents that I’m doing great,” I said. “But then I’m told that I MUST attend this PD. Is there something about my teaching that’s lacking? What is this about?”
She had no answer for this except something that I can’t remember.
She saw the handwriting on the wall and said “No use beating a dead horse” and said she would talk to the administration about it. I felt a bit sorry for her, but not that much.
Well, I have an answer to Garelick's question. The PD is all about reaching students who would leave a traditional p-set blank -- the students ignored by most traditionalists.
One of the comments here is by major traditionalist Ze'ev Wurman, who just pats Garelick on the back for getting out of the PD:
Ze'ev Wurman:
You escaped with the skin of your teeth.
But as usual, the main commenter is SteveH:
SteveH:
This reminds me so much of what my son’s early grade school teachers said about differentiated instruction – or rather, differentiated learning. “Success” without mastery – “answer getting”. The onus was on the kids and the parents. The assumption is that their process will do the job and if there is failure, then it doesn’t belong to them. Meanwhile, more and more parents take up the slack at home and set higher expectations. The teachers point to those kids as proof of their process.
The assumption made by traditionalists is that their students will do the job (of doing the p-sets) and if there is failure (that is, they leave the p-sets blank), then it doesn't belong to them. And the traditionalists point to those kids (the ones helped by parents/tutors) as proof of their process -- but of course, they only do the p-sets because their parents/tutors are sitting inches away. Hidden away in a classroom of 30 or more, these same students would leave the p-sets blank.
SteveH:
Life goes on and parents and tutors cover for them, and we still have no study that separates out the results of those kids who received outside help. Big data doesn’t help if you don’t collect the right data. You will see some kids do well and then come to the wrong conclusion.
The traditionalists will see some kids do well and then come to the wrong conclusion -- that just because you give the students p-sets, they'll automatically do the worksheets and succeed in math.
But from SteveH's perspective, it's amazing what the PD leader "knows" without a hint of empirical evidence.
Actually, I've decided to keep the old worksheet, but there's one more link from over the weekend that I want to include in this traditionalists' post.
https://www.joannejacobs.com/2019/03/csu-remedial-reforms-boost-math-pass-rate/
I wasn't going to link to this, but I couldn't resist it since several traditionalists are in the comments thread, including two (Ze'ev Wurman and Darren Miller) already appearing in this post.
I recognize this picture, since Joanne Jacobs linked to it a little more than a year ago. It's all about remedial math classes at college (specifically the Cal State University system):
Cassondra Lochard teaches a “corequisite” algebra class that includes remedial material at Cal State Dominguez Hills in 2017. Photo: Larry Gordon/EdSource
(Ah yes, I remember linking to this Edsource photo in another old traditionalists' debate post.)
Let me just quote the traditionalists' comments:
Darren Miller:
I’ll admit to being suspicious until I learn *much* more detail about what they’re doing. Too many times these Shangri-La discoveries turn out to be Potemkin Villages.
Ze'ev Wurman:
Same feeling here. Overnight huge jumps in passing rates, and for courses that are supposed to be more demanding — non-remedial vs remedial — are deeply suspicious.
We haven't heard from traditionalist Bill in a while:
Bill:
Applied stats is a course which most STEM majors are required to take, but even this course requires a solid understanding of Algebra in order to succeed. Additionally, if these students are going to move farther up the STEM track, it will be interesting to see if they can complete the harder math and science courses (doubtful at best given the SAT scores in math being reported).
Once again, Bill tells us that "Algebra" is required for statistics -- but I still don't know whether he means first semester Algebra I, second semester Algebra II, or somewhere in between. (For example, do we really need conic sections or trig to understand stats?)
Finally, a new traditionalist, pouncer:
pouncer:
I join the consensus here to register deep skepticism for ANY program that measures results by “pass rate” or “passing rate”.
There are very legitimate objections to “standardized tests” but we have to bear in mind that the problem this whole effort is designed to address is making a fair, honest, “apples-to-apples” assessment of pedagogic theory and experiment. I can assert that students who always wear yellow socks in my 4th grade classes enjoy higher graduation rates from Middle School — but unless and until the results show up in some sort of measure that measures MY 4th grade against a very large sample of YOUR and OTHERS’ 4th grade classes, then my assertion is not newsworthy.
No comments:
Post a Comment