Closing the Gap Requires More Time Learning

In the last several posts, I've been talking about Brooke East Boston, the unusual charter school, that has vaulted itself to the top of Massachusetts in math, and nearly so in reading.  In a past post, I linked to a video of a grade 1 math lesson, to make the point, that transforming education requires deep thinking about transformational teaching.   

Today I want to make another point about what we call "closing the gap" these days.   Closing the gap for most students is going to require more time learning along with better teaching, more engaging curriculum, and higher expectations about what children can learn.   I've been diving into MCA and NAEP results, and I think they cry out:  we need lots more time learning!   Brooke East has a much longer instructional day and a much longer instructional year.  I think that the students may tolerate that day, because the teaching engages them:  the work is interesting, challenging, and rewarding to the students.  

How big is the gap that we have to transcend?  Minnesota white 10th graders have an average NAEP math score of 302, which places them amongst the top three states for that category.  In comparison, Minnesota black 10^th graders have an average NAEP math score of 259.    That score is insignificantly different from the average NAEP math scores of white 4^th graders--256. Let's put a fine point on that:   in Minnesota, the average black 10th grader's score on the math NAEP is just barely over the average white 4th grade math student.   How are we going to make up that difference if we don't do something radically different.

Don't tell me that the black 4th graders can't do way better.  If you believe that, back up to my previous post and click on the link to the first grade math lesson at Brooke East Boston.   If Minnesota really wants to teach these youngsters math at a high level ,we can do it, but we're going to have to change.    Charter schools aren't the answer:  the answer is changing how we teach and how we deliver instruction, in whatever school is doing the job, charter or not. 

There is a span of 50 points between proficiency in 4^th and 8^th grade NAEP scores.   That is, a student who is proficient in 4^th grade needs to gain 12.5 points each year to maintain proficiency  in 8^th grade.   However, the average black 4^th grader’s NAEP score is 222.  To reach proficiency, the student who is at 222 points would have to make up 27 points just to get to 4th grade proficiency, and gain another 12.5 points per year.  That is almost 20 points a year.  

If we let kids get that far behind in 4th grade, the black math student with an average NAEP score of 222, must somehow grow in math, year after year, each year, at almost double the rate of growth managed by a proficient white student.  How is that going to happen? 

Mathematics is a knowledge pyramid that requires mastery of earlier learned material in order for students to progress.  When students are behind, they will get further behind, unless significant additional resources are provided, and most districts lack the funding  to provide this to students who need it.  And most teachers have not been taught how to do it in teaching school.  The only viable solution to this is to provide lots more learning time and radically different teaching approaches with outstanding curriculum.  

It would help to add some of that learning time in pre-school.  But that learning time will only help close the math gap if the people who run the school do more that baby sitting and social emotional learning.   Then,  it would help if we had a longer school day, with more math and better teaching in the early grades.   Or, we could add a couple month of accelerated learning in the summer, so that the kids who are behind have half a chance of catching up.  That's what Brooke does:  Longer school day in the regular school year, lots more time doing mathematics and doing it smarter, and a couple extra months added to the school year.

We can't do that in Minnesota, can we?  We want to "close the gap" as long as we don't upset anyone's vacation, as long as we don't spend more money, and as long as we don't have to change how we teach.   Our current solution is to post scores and see if we can humiliate schools into doing something fabulous, without changing a thing, and that's not doing the job, is it? 

Special Education, Part 3

More about Brooke--Can we do this here?

Periodically, I've been writing about Brooke East Boston, a highly rated charter school with stellar success with students drawn by lottery and large percentages of free and reduced lunch eligible students.  The idea is to use Brooke East to challenge thinking about whether those strategies are worth replicating in Minnesota, and if so, what we would have to change to create the  conditions for replication.  

In a previous post, I linked to a videoed model math lesson that demonstrates a remarkably agile teaching style with first grade math students.  In another post, I pointed out that new teachers at Brooke, receive a fully month of pre-training before their first year of teaching, and that first-year teachers receive significant mentorship support.  They are doing things differently, things that seem to work, and they believe that they cannot make a quantum difference with these kids, unless the entire teaching staff engages in continuous professional development and learns to implement the strategies that have proven to work.   Along with these strategies, the school observes a longer instructional day, and a longer instructional year that Minnesota traditional publics as well. 

 For this post, I've imported a chart describing some of the things that the school does -- in addition to using an ambitious curriculum-- to promote high quality teaching.  Here is their chart:

As a thought experiment, suppose your district leadership decided that they want to duplicate the "great teaching" approach adopted by Brooke reflected in the chart above. It would have to find staff time to implement:

• 20 administrative observations per year
• 15 peer observations per year
• 3 hours each week of targeted professional development
• regular interim data meetings
• daily co-planning
• 10 video self-analysis each year for each teach

The time for these strategies is not paid for by reducing actual instructional time.   Students have more instructional time each day, and many more instructional days than other schools.

To pull this off, a Minnesota school would need the power or resources to buy that time, and it would need the vision to use that time productively, because there is no point in doing peer observations if they don't add value, no point in having administrators observe, if they don't have the talent and wisdom to turn those observations into opportunities to grow.



One senses also, that the folks at Brooke East Boston have a system that works for them and they are constantly refining it through teamwork and mentoring.  They share, curriculum, instructional frameworks, standard ways of garnering attention:  they share things that staff finds successful. They use a common way of structuring math instruction, and that means that each math class moves more readily into the lesson and its parts. As another example, if you view math lesson videos from different grade levels at Brook,  you may see somewhere on the wall or board a ten by ten hundreds grid that seems to be used persistently from class to class and you may see a teacher developing the trade craft associated with using the grid for teaching and solving problems.

In the first grade lesson on patterns that I posted about,  some students don't recognize that if you want to make five hops from the number 9, the hop from 9 to 10 has to be "outside the grid." Several students got confused trying to illustrate that hop. 

The teacher spends time making sure that all students understand that you have to count that hop outside the grid, in order to hop  a specified amount from one number to another.  That's an example of developing tradecraft in using the ten by ten number grid.  Using the same number grid from grade-to-grade helps all teachers anticipate common issues and reach more kids more rapidly.   And, if there is regular co-planning, solutions for issues like this become part of the institutional tradecraft of teaching.  

Brooke has decided that its students need a longer instructional day if they are going to thrive.  It has decided that it needs more instructional days, too, a lot of them.   It has decided that teachers need more observational time, more professional development time and more common planning.  

If a traditional public school system wanted to implement those strategies, it would confront a number of challenges.   Typically, all students get the same number of instructional days, whether they need it or not.   A school district must bargain for, and then pay for, the additional instructional time, the additional planning time, and the state does not provide adequate compensation to reimburse for that time.  And, if the state were to do so, there would be political and tremendous bargaining pressure to use that extra money for something else.  

This illustrates the critical inter-relationship between reforming the delivery of education and the amount of revenues we provide.  If students need more time learning, and teachers need more time collaborating and preparing, simply increasing the revenues allocated to school districts is unlikely to translate directly to reforms that really make a difference.   If we want to make transformations in public education, we have to find a way to change how we deliver instruction, and pay for it at the same time.
 

Closing the Special Education Gap is Not All That Hard

For decades now, Minnesota has had a special education deficit, which politicians and the Minnesota Department of Education slyly call the "special education cross subsidy."   Here is the MDE's graphical presentation of that deficit, which represents the comparison of total special education expenditures to the total of special education revenues, state and federal.   We call it the cross subsidy, because both state and federal law basically prohibit a district from cutting expenditures to resolve the deficit, but instead, require districts to cannibalize funds from other necessary programs to cover the mandate deficit.


The entire education community, insiders and outsiders, know that this practice, of shifting the cost of special education to other students is an abomination.  There is no rational basis for doing business this ways: It harms our most vulnerable students and it tends to impact most negatively the school districts who can least afford to absorb it.   It is, in a word, unconstitutional, and everyone knows it.

However it has become accepted by virtually the entire education community, insiders and outsiders, that it is, of course, absolutely unrealistic and certainly impossible, to expect, or even ask, the legislature to fully fund this mandated expenditure.  Where would $750 million per year come from?  It would foolish even to ask, we are told.

Yet, year after year, as we enter the biennial odd numbered budgeting year, the State's Management and Budget Office report that we have a budget surplus, and immediately, legislators debate how much of that surplus should be rebated in the form of a tax cut to "give the taxpayer's their money back."  In February of 2016, Minnesota Public Radio reported budget projections of about $1 billion.  That's a one billion dollar surplus with a 1.5 billion dollar biennial special education budget deficit.    In February of 2017 the forecast budget surplus from Management and Budget was $1.6 billion. Flush with cash, the legislature and Governor Dayton compromised at the end of the 2017 session on a $600 million tax cut, but promised to study how the special education deficit might be closed.

Study, in this context, means really, postpone, or procrastinate, or ignore.   Year after year, we pretend that if we could just think things through, we might come up with a solution to narrow the special education deficit, but announce other plans for the surplus that is staring us in the face.  

Sooner or later, and hopefully sooner, an ambitious plaintiff is going to sue the state to require full funding of the special education mandate.   When that happens, the state is most certainly going to respond by telling the court that $750 million per year is impossibly beyond reach.  But closing the gap is not going to be all that hard.  We simply need to stop pretending that we have a surplus when special education is underfunded, and allocate that surplus money to cover that unfunded mandate. 

MASBO, the Minnesota school business officer's legislative platform states: “It is critical that the State continue to stabilize funding and appropriately recognize education as a priority, given its constitutional obligations." The Association of Metropolitan School Districts (AMSD) states in its platform: “Minnesota’s education funding system does not provide adequate, equitable or reliable resources for our schools. important work remains if we are to achieve the “thorough and efficient” education funding system envisioned in the State Constitution"  SEE, (Schools for Equity in Education) states in its platform: "Quality public education –the engine that drives Minnesota’s economic prosperity-is threatened by years of neglect at the state level …It is crucial that this shortfall in state funding for special education be funded.”

The Minnesota Association of School Administrator's platform states that we must: "Increase the basic general education formula by at least 3% per pupil unit each year of the biennium….Create a plan to fully fund the special education cross-subsidy."  The Minnesota School Board's Association urges that we must:  "eliminate the cross subsidy of special education programs by general education funds. The state shall assume the responsibility of supplying the additional revenue to fully fund the gap between the deficit in federal funding and the actual special education costs incurred by school districts."

It should be obvious by now, that the legislature is going to continue to study this problem to death, but do nothing, unless there is a constitutional suit.   When I discuss this with many educators, they often confuse this idea with providing even more money for special education.   Fully funding special education is necessary so that the cross subsidy can be returned to other programs.  We need to fully fund special education  so that we can increase our efforts for other disadvantaged students, students who were are leaving behind. If, and when, that happens, it is critical that school districts be required to use those funds to make a quantum leap in programs necessary to provide a better education to the students we are currently leaving behind.   I'll say more about this in future posts.

Debunking the Special Education Federal Share Alibi Part 2

A real first grade Math Lesson at Brooke East Boston

This post provides a link to a real live first grade math lesson at Brooke East Boston.   I guarantee if you take time to watch the lesson, you will not only learn something, but it will stimulate some deep thinking about how we can reform and improve our own schools. 

I’ve been focusing on teaching at Brooke East Boston, a K-Middle school in that city.  Students are selected by state conducted lottery.   The school has state leading math test results, and very high literacy test scores.  I’m suggesting that people who advocate school reform need to focus more on what goes on in classrooms.   When you see an example of a highly successful highly functional system, if you like what you see, it forces you to think about “how can we do that in other schools and classrooms.”

This morning, we had a family get-together across three generations.   Five of us, all of whom have varying amounts of teaching experience, in varying grades and settings, watched this video lesson for about 20 minutes. The links to the lesson are found below.   That triggered another one-hour plus of conversation: “how do they do that?”  I assert that you cannot watch this video without thinking about school reform, school organization, and teaching.

This blog contains links to the lesson we watched.  It’s a first-grade math lesson.  The students in this school are predominantly free and reduced lunch eligible.  The lesson is on number patterns.   I virtually guarantee you that if you watch this lesson, it will stimulate you to think.   Notice that the students already know the structure of the classroom protocol.   What else do you see that you like.  What do you see that you question?   These are first graders:   are they demonstrating traditional Minnesota first grade skills?

Here is the link to the video of the lesson.  

Here is the link to the lesson plan.
The lesson begins with the first graders completing a worksheet.  Here is the worksheet.
At the end of the lesson, students complete an exit ticket, here it is.

If we want to reform education, we need to be more intentional about what we do in schools.  We can talk about the color of the teacher.  We can talk about seniority, tenure, integration, choice, and all the rest.  But we have to think more intentionally about how do we make the classroom work.

We’ll write more about this in the next post. 

Notes on Brooke East Boston Part I

These are modified notes from my son Michael, who visited Brooke East Boston, a charter school in that city.   The school has received considerable notice because it produces remarkably good test score results. Often, when we engage on the topic of school reform, we engage on whether charters, or traditional publics, or some other organizational structure is best  Too little attention, I think, is paid to what actually goes on in side the school.  How much time do students spend learning?  What do teachers actually do?   How intellectually demanding are the lessons, and what does the school expect its students to be able to do? 

One way to attack these important issues is to consider actual descriptions of what goes on in these schools of excellence.  Then, we might begin by asking of the approach is worth replicating, and if so, how we would go about changing the overall system of education to make that possible?   Do we fail to use these successful approaches, because only a few leaders and teachers can execute them? Or, because they cost more?  Or, because our schools of education simply don't know about them, or don't believe in them?   Or, do we secretly believe that the students in these successful schools are special, and somehow the deck is stacked in favor of the school's success?

With thanks to Michael Von Korff, here is his report on a visit to Brooke East Boston, with a few modifications and interpolations. Michael works in the field of math education, hence the emphasis here.

What is Brooke? What is this report?

Brooke East Boston is an elementary and middle school charter, part of the tiny Brooke Charter Schools network. It’s arguably the highest-performing school in the state on the math PARCC (especially in elementary grades). The school is 91% black and Latino, and 75% of students qualify for free or reduced price lunch.

The school permits and even encourages visitors. I visited in late August 2018, several weeks into the Brooke school year, and observed classes for a full day. I’ve tried to summarize what I observed about Brooke’s model.

Resources on Brooke

Brooke shares a variety of resources for visitors on its website, outlining the charter network’s values and its approach to school leadership and instruction.

Brooke also shares a variety of math instructional resources, including:

●     A high-level overview of Brooke’s approach

●     Scope and sequence information for each grade and “unit plans” for each math unit

●     Videos showing instruction at Brooke, with teacher commentary

Features of the Brooke System

More class time

The Brooke school year runs from August 10th to June 20th, with 32 school vacation days.

The Brooke school day runs from 7:45am to 4pm, ending at 12:15pm every Wednesday to give time for teacher PD. Students at Brooke have up to three math classes per day:

●     50 minutes for the central math lesson

●     35 minutes for a practice-focused “slate” class

●     35 minutes two days a week for mental math.

In total, Brooke students spend about 80 minutes a day on math, over about 197 instructional days.

Focus on teaching quality

Brooke heavily emphasizes teacher professional development. This emphasis manifests in several ways:

●     Training and support for new teachers. Brooke’s support for new teachers includes a one-month training program for all new teachers before school begins, as well as a yearlong “associate teacher program” (essentially an intensive student teacher program) for first-time teachers.

●     Time for PD. Brooke ends school early every Wednesday so that teachers can devote 3 hours to collaboration and professional development.

●     Observation and communication. Teachers and administrators constantly observe the classrooms of others. Instructional leaders regularly observe classrooms together in a process called “rounds,” to align their views on quality instruction.

Let's talk about More time Learning

I'm going to interrupt Michael's report, now, to ask whether more time learning is important, and if so what we need to do about that.   It stands to reason, doesn't it, that if students are coming to school far behind, if they have experienced educational deficits, that they are likely to need more time to catch up and thrive.   What makes us think that a student who is a year or more behind, or a grade or more behind, will somehow accelerate his learning and catch up with his advantaged peer in the same amount of time and in the same classroom with the same teacher.

Aren't we fooling ourselves to avoid the fact that it likely will take more money, substantially more money, to catch this student up, because he needs more time in school.   If he merely stays in school the same number of days, while he is moving forward, his advantaged student is moving forward at the same rate, or even faster, using his advantages to achieve even more.   One of the things that Brooke East Boston is doing is to give its students a chance to beat the odds by giving them an extra time boost.  They aren't in the money wasting business, they must believe that the extra time makes a difference. 
I'll have more of Michael's Brooke East Boston report in my next post