Thoughts about Streaming & Balkanisation

I have to admit these three articles had me thinking about a lot of different things that would make this blog go on forever, so I decided just to take a couple of points.

1) Streaming – I wonder if discussion of streaming rises with as much fervour as it does in mathematics. It certainly seems to rear ‘its’ head in every school I have worked in, and generally the math teachers were always in favour of streaming. Now I have to admit I have worked mostly in schools where the streaming was academic and enriched, general was not offered; therefore the students who were in academic were not at risk of limiting their future choices as seen in the chapter by Dei et al. Do I agree with streaming, I have to confess there are days when I will say yes, and then other days when I will say no. It is a subject that I have never been able to be definitely on one side or the other.

Many years ago I was asked to research the viability of deciding to stream from grade 7 on. I did the research, I went to a few schools where streaming was instigated to ask why and teachers’ thoughts about it, and I have to say that again I could find arguments for and against – it was a somewhat frustrating journey. This is not a topic with a clearly defined right or wrong answer. Again, I do speak from a unique perspective of academic vs. enriched, so my concerns for streaming may not be necessarily the same as seen in the report or chapters. Except for perhaps the concern that enriched courses may be seen as status symbols – ‘ins’ versus the ‘not-ins’ as described by these authors. This always tends to be a frustrating topic for me.

2) Balkanisation - I can understand where the teachers are coming from in Roxburgh High. I do believe that teachers do gain a comfort level in their teaching and feel that their ‘methods’ are working so why change them. I confess that for the last couple of years I felt that I was falling into a rut myself and decided it was a good time to leave teaching for the year to earn my Master’s. I feel that I can honestly say that the courses I have taking thus far has forced me to reflect on my practices and determine what I may be able to do when I return to teaching. However, having said that I know that once I step back into the school environment I am going to have to fight against a lot of bureaucracy and pressures that comes with an ‘academic’ setting that may slow down my chances of implementing new ideas, especially if positive results are not seen quickly. Perhaps this is a possible concern of teachers at Roxburgh? Why change what is working? Yet from the article, it would seem that the teachers were not aware that what was happening was not in fact working for the students in the general courses.

In the IB programme, students are to take a course from six groups (first language, second language, humanities, science, math and arts), but in actual fact they can opt out of taking a course in Group 6 – the arts. Generally, a lot of students choose to do drop arts and take a second science or humanity course. I never thought to ask my colleagues how they felt about this option for students to drop out of Group 6, but I would have to think that there must be (?) some level of discontentment that this is allowed. I really should find out!

I think I am going to stop here for I believe I could write a lot more.

Thank you.

School structures and math education

So, after reading this week's readings, I'd love to hear from you all about how you think a) department structures, and b) streaming, affect the ways you interact with students, the ways you teach, and the ways you learn or learned as a student.

I went to high school in Ontario when it was streamed into Basic, General, and Advanced. And at the time, I remember noticing that kids from different neighborhoods tended to be streamed differently. I also sort of recognized that there were socioeconomic differences between the neighborhoods. But it all seemed normal and natural to me - probably because I was in the Advanced group so it didn't seem unfair.

As a teacher, department structures definitely affected the way I interacted with students. I only ever knew the other math teachers - but then again, I was only a student teacher so not really part of the school. But I really only had access to math teachers and their opinions about the students and about appropriate teaching methods. Streaming also played a big part because the teachers I was working with had very definite ideas about what was appropriate for the high vs. low streams. Don't get me wrong - I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in teaching differently to different classes of students. What I have a problem with is that a) these assumptions about what is appropriate tend to be made before teachers even know their students - you just know, for example, that it's an 'applied' or an 'academic' class, and therefore b) teachers seem to place a lot of faith in the streaming process and in the idea that students learn better when they are with others 'like them.' I'm not convinced that this is true. Other studies of tracking have shown that students tend to learn more in the higher tracks - what with higher expectations and more rigorous work.

I'm curious about how department structures and streaming affect(ed) your teaching and learning experiences.

First week's reading

Gap-gazing to me is also a new term but considering the fact that i am new in Canada i will be coming across lots of terms in maths and in various fields of education that i think i will not be familiar with, and i am hoping that Ms. Indigo and all experience teachers in my class will help me understand the education system of Ontario . Last year i was watching CNN and i found out that in year 2009 out of every 25 student 19 students are asians who beat americans in maths in SATs and GMATs. I am not sure about all the factors that are creating this achievement gap but after reading this article i can see Rochelle Guiterrez preoccupation with gender, race etc seems to suggest that the full set of factors that actually create the learning gap might not have been fully brought to light or might be wrongly attributed to race, gender etc. A case in point could be the impact of cultural differences across different nations that affects math learning. Chinese parents, for example, have a much stronger desire to see their children succeed in life and subject them to a much more rigorous learning process. Many chinese children attend chinese schools on weekends where they are exposed to a much advanced level of mathematics. This extra practice and exposure to advanced mathematics makes it so much easier for them to excel in the weekday schools. Another example is the lower education levels of latino and black parents and therefore their lack of awareness and inability to help out their children as compared to white parents. Hence further fact finding and a more nuanced analysis would definitely bring factors such as these to the fore and allow a more targeted and effective problem solving.

I agree with dimensions of studies on equity, however just like Diane i am not sure i clearly understand “power” as a fourth dimension.

Gap-gazing: Abandon Ship?

Like Leslie, “gap-gazing” for me was a completely novel term albeit an interesting one. Gutierrez’ article does well to outline the dangers of maintaining an achievement-gap focus. She describes that gap analyses and statistics, more than often, paints a static picture of inequalities and can also perpetuate narrow definitions of learning and equity (pg. 357). Gutierrez advocates that we move away from gap-focused analyses towards more “accessible” and contextualized research.

As the world of science and technology advance, society in turn has come to value efficiency and productivity. In turn, studies of efficiency and productive have come to depend on scientific methods and statistical research. Case in point – Media and Ad campaigns have used familiar tags such as “scientifically proven” or “scientifically tested” in order to market and sell products (capitalism served on a plate). With this view in mind, it is not surprising that educational institutions have standardized evaluations – afterall, aren’t schools the “factories” that generate the workers of tomorrow? If so, then why not measure their efficiency? Before we condemn the achievement gap analyses, let us stop and think. Many of us are here because we are math educators or at least value math education. Aren’t some of us math experts that pride numeracy and the power of statistical analyses? If we are to abandon research that documents gap analyses like Gutierrez suggests, then aren’t we being hypocritical?

The problem here is that we have learned to take gap analyses literally. Correlation does not mean causality. The way I see it, gap analyses simply displays variance, nothing more. A number itself does not have meaning. By simply placing equality on the notion of how “similar” EQAO results are ultimately does not do justice. At the same time, I do not think it is suffice to simply abandon research on gap analyses. We must not forget some of the positive outcomes of gap analyses (i.e. more funding for schooling, credit recovery programs, and elementary and secondary mathematics initiatives).

Before we abandon ship, let’s work to fix it.

Struggles to understand identity and power

I think Gutteriez talks about what is ultimately important in education- pursuing excellence where as Lubienski speaks about what is pragmatic in terms of making changes.

I found Gutteriez four elements:

-access

-achievement

-identity and

-power

helpful expand my thinking about equity, but I feel my understanding of the latter two still foggy. For years as a teacher I have focussed on access to meaningful mathematics and promoting high achievement. I would even add “Awareness” to this list, helping students see the value of marks and the conventions of schooling and middle class.

As for identity and power- a bit of background may help to put my comments in context. I am from Northern BC- 1 hour from the Alaskan Panhandle. I realise now that we were statistically poor, but so was the rest of the community so we didn’t know it (one we only had 1 TV channel). Almost everyone I knew was self-employed or worked small family companies in logging or ranching. Independence was a very prized commodity, as was community; strategic behaviours to get promoted or noticed was completely absent.

Since I have lived all over Canada and in Europe a couple of times and my understanding of power and identity have been challenged. For years I just wanted to move “home” because I had a community there. It is only in recent years, that I realised that a lot of this was a struggle for identity, the communities I live in now have different norms and I not really sure I know how to fit into them.

I almost didn’t go to university because no one I knew did but a guidance counsellor put a lot of pressure on me and my sister to go because we were strong students. I loved it my sister didn’t like the environment and dropped out after a year. No one in the family questioned her decision- “Do what you want to do” (Just an aside in terms of equity- She has way more work experience than I do, yet I make double her salary). My parents were proud of me for completing a BA and MA, but openly questioned the value of a PhD.

When I first became aware of “power” in a course for my Bed, I was very uncomfortable with openly teaching about it. It seemed to me that the activities I saw would build resentment among the less powerful and I didn’t see the value in that. As a teacher, I did what I thought was best for my students, and this was informed by my experiences in a community that didn’t value schooling. I acted as the schools IT coordinator, and initially I had a lot of influence on decisions being made in the school, but with a change in administration, I become voiceless in the school and resentful of the fact. Starting my MA, was a result of this. I can now see some ways that other teachers behave to have a voice in school decisions in the school, but I as try out new behaviours, I think sometimes I come on too strong and may come of abrasive. I also struggle with who I want to be- brown-nosers were really looked down upon in my world. How to act proactively yet maintain some sense of identity?

It is this recent awareness of education politics that makes me appreciate Lubienski’s argument. Test results are important to policy makers. And we need these people to invest in education.

These reflections developed in my forties with a lot of education, and I consider my culture to be fairly close to mainstream (maybe I am wrong about that). How do we help students of other races and cultures feel they can participate effectively in the mainstream and yet maintain their identity? How do we raise these issues in the classroom without alienating students that feel as I once did?

Thoughts on this week's readings

Re: EQAO & Gap-gazing

To begin with I have to admit that I have never heard of the term ‘gap-gazing’, the concept, yes, but not this terminology. Also, I have to say that I have had the opportunities to read and research gap analyses as defined by Lubienski; the idea of looking at results of students on achievement tests and seeing these results used as a comparative tool (e.g. White-Black, White-Latino, etc.). I do agree with Lubienski that these tools can be used effectively in changing my teaching practicing and in fact every year as an IB teacher I receive three pieces of information: individual student result, math grade results compared to world and a report that explicitly gives feedback to what areas (topics) were considered difficult. I use this information to change what/how I teach the following year. I feel that this is invaluable.

However, I understand Gutiérrez’s concern that comparing White-Black, White-Latino, etc. is a very limiting tool and I was surprised to learn that longitudinal studies have not been done (or not enough) to look at how a particular group (Blacks, Latinos, Asian, girls, boys, etc) has gained (or not gained, if this should be the case) understanding of mathematical concepts over the years, that only the above achievement results are truly looked at. This is a concern for how can any teacher help a student or group of students if we do not truly understand what success or failure, what concepts do they understand or not understand, if we only see how one group succeeded against another. I have to admit I work in a fairly homogenous environment, but even in this environment I could provide a more enriched learning environment if I had research information that shows me clearly what works for my group of students. I did find it interesting that Gutiérrez still approved of standardized tests; I would have thought that the high stakes aspect of these tests and the overwhelming role that the results could play in policy making (in the US, school results could mean lost of funding or even school closure, happily EQAO results have not led to this for Ontario thus far), that Gutiérrez would like to see these tests removed. Yet she feels that these tests measure her concept of excellence, but do they really?

With respect to the EQAO article, I found this paper to be too ‘rah-rah’, but understandable as this is a government created organization and they want to show the stakeholders (parents, students) that improvement is being seen in mathematics. However, if one looks closely at the numbers, the EQAO claims are a bit generous. Yet, I do not feel that I can comment too much about the validity of these tests as currently my school does not administer any of these tests other than the Grade 10 Literacy test. I look forward to talking to other teachers about these tests and if they are a) good indicators of improvement b) helpful in the teaching of the math curriculum or c) if the results do help teachers to change practice accordingly.

Thank you.

Leslie

Gap-gazing and the EQAO

It was really interesting to read Gutierrez's critique of 'gap-gazing' right after reading the EQAO report on mathematics achievement in Ontario. Specifically, I found that even though the EQAO is not really presented as an analysis of gaps, and the authors don't explicitly articulate a stance on equity, a lot of the analysis in the report is about the gaps.
On the one hand, I appreciate the way the report focuses on excellence by looking at how many students from various groups achieved levels 3 and 4 (achieved expectations). This is in contrast with just looking at gaps between groups. So, for example, the problem for applied students is that not many of them are achieving proficiency - rather than articulating the problem as being that they don't achieve as well as the academic students (on average). This focus on excellence matches Gutierrez's recommendation for equity research.
However, I think Gutierrez would critique the recommendations that were made for teachers (the last few pages of the selection we read). These definitely treat problems of achievement as 'technical' problems - ones that can be saved by a few changes to pedagogy, a little tweaking, but no real fundamental change. There was no mention of sexism or gender bias in the section on gender, and no mention of racism or xenophobia in the section on English Language Learners. But I believe (as Gutierrez also articulated) that the political and social contexts of schools have a big impact on the learning that is made possible, and I don't believe that small cosmetic changes in teaching (like using Universal Design or differentiated instruction, or mixed-gender group work) will make the kinds of changes that are required.