As we begin to gear up for a new school year, I've been thinking about some of the questions math leaders should be focused on to drive real growth in math learning this year. There are obviously lots of questions to attend to; one of the biggest challenges to leadership is simply to focus on what matters! (Note that these are mostly in the technical/structural domain. I guess that's just where my head is these days.) Here's my "top five," let me know what you think.
1. Do teachers have access to a high-quality, standards-aligned set of instructional materials?
I know this one isn't a big surprise, but I think still worth asking. When we ask teachers to create their own materials, or work with a curriculum that isn't well-aligned to the standards, we aren't setting adults or kids up for success.
2. Have the instructional materials been adapted to more acutely focus on the most important learning of the grade, with appropriate supports and cumulative review?
I wrote earlier about doing more with less; in order to accelerate learning, some tough choices are required to ensure that students have enough time to engage with grade-level content. Students may need extra time to learn and practice key ideas; there may also need to be time used for providing just-in-time priming or review of necessary prerequisites from prior grades.
3. Do teachers have ongoing coaching and PD focused on how to prepare and use the instructional materials for at least 2 hours a week?
Most likely, this is an hour of 1-1 coaching and an hour of professional learning, and notice that the focus is on how to prepare and use instructional materials. As this RPPL brief (which does a nice job of synthesizing the evidence base for professional learning) emphasizes, professional learning works best when it is focused on classroom practice, rather than, say, learning math content. It also speaks to the importance of coaching as a form of ongoing support and accountability.
4. Do a sizable chunk of students (30% or more) get small group math intervention for 30 minutes a day twice a week, focused on content that supports success in core instruction?
All students will benefit from some form of small group instruction. One key here is that it is done consistently at least twice a week. Another key is that this time supports success in core instruction. In other words, this time is not spent meandering through unrelated topics from prior grades; rather, this time is spent priming and preteaching content necessary for upcoming core lessons. For example, if 6th grade students are about to study unit rate, they spending time learning key prerequisites (such as work with division) or, in fact, previewing unit rate.
5. Are there daily or weekly routines where teachers and leaders are looking at student work together?
Curriculum-embedded unit tests and interim assessments are important. (In fact, if I could have a sixth question, it would be: Are there common unit and interim assessments that balance alignment between the instructional materials and external standardized measures?) But often we wait too long to "get the data," and then struggle to react because there is so much to respond to in limited time. If we instead look at the math students are producing on a daily or weekly basis, starting at the beginning of the school year, we can work more quickly and proactively to adjust course.
Do these resonate with you? What would you advocate for instead? Let me know!
Comments