We are always looking for ways to improve our students' math fluency. The constant lament that children cannot do times tables is a familiar one. The force feeding of number operations is both tiring and very time consuming. On the other hand students do need a degree of facility with numbers and if we as teachers can get there with a little slight of hand so be it. The following is not designed to be a panacea for all of our computational issues but merely a tool to get students thinking about numbers.
There are a number of "short cuts" that we can use that I have found children enjoy and handle with a certain amount of ease. One, I call, for lack of a better label, is the Power of 5. Very simply put, I ask a class of grade 5 or 6 students, what is the answer to 5 x 18. Usually the wheels start grinding and upon asking what is the process taking place inside their brains. I hear a variety of responses, such as, "I'm multiplying 5 x 10 and 5 x 8 and adding the two answers together". Many will tell you they are doing the traditional algorithm. This and other strategies are fine of course. However ask them what is half of 18. The answer 9 is quickly given. Place a zero after the 9 (0). Try 5 x 14, 5 x 16. Smiles ... as the solutions are found easily. This is the starting point. Odd numbers can be mastered with a bit of practice but a lesson in developing a facility with them is the second step in this strategy.
Move to more challenging questions 5 x 68 and 5 x 124. Now we do an interesting thing, I ask my students to read the number as they read a sentence from left to right. Now ask yourself what is half of each digit ... 6 > 3, 8 > 4, the answer 340. It is a real joy to see children who struggle with numbers tell you how easy it was to find half of 64 looking at the number this way. Now with 124, reading left to right. If the first digit is one join it with the second digit (12) and find half > 6, half 4 > 2, the answer is 620. Try a very large number 2 684 428. Students get a kick out of doing this without a calculator. The answer is 13 422 140. Now as a bonus you have then reading a very large number. And you will see the light come on for some of the students who find number operations a challenge. With today's access to worksheets programs it is easy to reinforce this concept.
Teachers and parents need to be aware that doing this gets students thinking about numbers in a non-traditional manner and that is always good!
The best results I have found with this is the use of short, maybe 15 minute teaching blocks 2 to 3 times a week to get students doing these automatically. Step 1 the multiplication of even numbers is mastered quickly, step 2 working with odd numbers will be addresses in the next article/blog. Be prepared to answer why we add zeros.
Initially this may seem to be a very simple or basic concept but having explored it in some depth we can take this a long way. Think, are not multiplication and division opposite operations? How does this apply to what we are doing? Also we can challenge students to see 25 or 75 can be connected to what we are doing, working with decimals is obviously a big part of what we are doing.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Friday, July 18, 2014
Teacher "Tenure" --- A Myth
There was a recent lower court ruling against so-called "Teacher Tenure" here in California. The extent of the ruling is to be determined , but the general verdict is that "tenure" was unfair to providing an equal education for all students as called for by the State Constitution.
I believe the reading was faulty for a board range of reasons. First of all, teachers in California do not actually have tenure, at least not in the sense that professors get tenure.
When a professor has tenure they can be fired only for some gross negligence or breaking of the law. Poor teaching, poor research, or doing a shoddy job cannot lead to the loss of position under most university tenure rules. Of course, it takes much longer (typically 7 years) and a much more difficult process for professors to get that protection.
As for k-12 teachers in California we receive "Permanent Status." In a teacher's first two years (or more if they do not have have a permanent position contract) there is no due process-we can be rehired or not for the following year completely at the will and whim of the district. No reason need to given, and typically no reason given. After the probationary period, we receive "Permanent Status" within that district. If you move to a new district the process starts all over. But, by law, all teachers are evaluated by their principal or supervisor at least every 2 years. The law does not prevent then from being evaluated more frequently ( though occasionally local contracts may stipulate limits). If a teacher receives an unsatisfactory rating-a rating that is up to the principal of supervisor-then that automatically means they are in danger of losing their job. They are given the opportunity to show improvement, so there is a process. But, :tenure" for k-12 teachers does not in any way shape or form mean that they cannot be fired for poor teaching. The fact that poor teachers are not let go is completely a lack of principals and supervisors doing their job. In this area some principals work in elementary schools of up to 900 students with no assistant principal due to cutbacks.
Many states do not allow teachers to have the protection of due process (e.g. "tenure"). Charter schools, for the most part, do not give teachers such protections. Yet, there is no evidence that they get better outcomes for students. Charter schools do not outperform schools serving like students her in California or anywhere else. Nor do states without tenure outperform states that have tenure. Without even a correlation, much less a relationship shown between teacher "tenure" a student outcomes, to take away such protections claiming it is for the sake of student equity makes no sense at all,
What "tenure" protects is teachers being arbitrarily fired, or as is more often the case, fired for their views or being outspoken, "Tenure" is a form of due process. It just says the district must show cause in order to fire someone. One of my friends, lost his first teaching job, for instance, while still in the probationary period, even though he had all excellent teaching evaluations. What he did that was not so smart was openly express disagreement with some of the districts policies. As he was still probationary all they had to do was say, we are not asking you back next year. Even with the protection of due process, I have much more often seen principals and districts go after teachers for being "trouble makers" (i.e. expressing dissent as to school or district policies) than for poor teaching.
The solution to poor teachers is really four fold (at least). One is to attract better teachers. That means making the field more attractive not less. Lack of job security does not help attract people to the profession. Another is to continue to support teachers once in the field, something we do a poor job of. No teacher wants to be a bad teacher. And good teaching can be learned. Also many teachers teach under horrendous conditions. With proper support both in terms of teaching conditions and ongoing professional development, there would be very little poor teaching. We also need to support principals more in the process of both helping weak teachers, and helping them get rid of the bad
ones. Lastly, there probably does need to be a better system for figuring out what to do with those very few teachers who either are not cut out for teaching but somehow did get "tenure" or who have burned out and are no longer up to it, but cannot leave teaching because there are no other options for them economically.
The real agenda of the attack on teacher job security is really to reduce the power of teacher unions and an attack on public school teachers in general. Teacher unions are seen as a threat to the almost unrivaled power of the multibillionaires and corporate money in the American political arena. As it is they easily outspend unions 10-1, and seem to control the public discourse about most political issues are framed. Can you imagine their power once they completely decimate what little there is left of the unionized base in this country?
I believe the reading was faulty for a board range of reasons. First of all, teachers in California do not actually have tenure, at least not in the sense that professors get tenure.
When a professor has tenure they can be fired only for some gross negligence or breaking of the law. Poor teaching, poor research, or doing a shoddy job cannot lead to the loss of position under most university tenure rules. Of course, it takes much longer (typically 7 years) and a much more difficult process for professors to get that protection.
As for k-12 teachers in California we receive "Permanent Status." In a teacher's first two years (or more if they do not have have a permanent position contract) there is no due process-we can be rehired or not for the following year completely at the will and whim of the district. No reason need to given, and typically no reason given. After the probationary period, we receive "Permanent Status" within that district. If you move to a new district the process starts all over. But, by law, all teachers are evaluated by their principal or supervisor at least every 2 years. The law does not prevent then from being evaluated more frequently ( though occasionally local contracts may stipulate limits). If a teacher receives an unsatisfactory rating-a rating that is up to the principal of supervisor-then that automatically means they are in danger of losing their job. They are given the opportunity to show improvement, so there is a process. But, :tenure" for k-12 teachers does not in any way shape or form mean that they cannot be fired for poor teaching. The fact that poor teachers are not let go is completely a lack of principals and supervisors doing their job. In this area some principals work in elementary schools of up to 900 students with no assistant principal due to cutbacks.
Many states do not allow teachers to have the protection of due process (e.g. "tenure"). Charter schools, for the most part, do not give teachers such protections. Yet, there is no evidence that they get better outcomes for students. Charter schools do not outperform schools serving like students her in California or anywhere else. Nor do states without tenure outperform states that have tenure. Without even a correlation, much less a relationship shown between teacher "tenure" a student outcomes, to take away such protections claiming it is for the sake of student equity makes no sense at all,
What "tenure" protects is teachers being arbitrarily fired, or as is more often the case, fired for their views or being outspoken, "Tenure" is a form of due process. It just says the district must show cause in order to fire someone. One of my friends, lost his first teaching job, for instance, while still in the probationary period, even though he had all excellent teaching evaluations. What he did that was not so smart was openly express disagreement with some of the districts policies. As he was still probationary all they had to do was say, we are not asking you back next year. Even with the protection of due process, I have much more often seen principals and districts go after teachers for being "trouble makers" (i.e. expressing dissent as to school or district policies) than for poor teaching.
The solution to poor teachers is really four fold (at least). One is to attract better teachers. That means making the field more attractive not less. Lack of job security does not help attract people to the profession. Another is to continue to support teachers once in the field, something we do a poor job of. No teacher wants to be a bad teacher. And good teaching can be learned. Also many teachers teach under horrendous conditions. With proper support both in terms of teaching conditions and ongoing professional development, there would be very little poor teaching. We also need to support principals more in the process of both helping weak teachers, and helping them get rid of the bad
ones. Lastly, there probably does need to be a better system for figuring out what to do with those very few teachers who either are not cut out for teaching but somehow did get "tenure" or who have burned out and are no longer up to it, but cannot leave teaching because there are no other options for them economically.
The real agenda of the attack on teacher job security is really to reduce the power of teacher unions and an attack on public school teachers in general. Teacher unions are seen as a threat to the almost unrivaled power of the multibillionaires and corporate money in the American political arena. As it is they easily outspend unions 10-1, and seem to control the public discourse about most political issues are framed. Can you imagine their power once they completely decimate what little there is left of the unionized base in this country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)