By Sara Finegan

         I’m teaching a general education math class this year that includes many of my own kids with learning disabilities as well as kids who do not have IEPs.  We’re  about six days behind the other class at the same grade level, and both of us finished the first two units well before the district’s first math benchmark assessment. 

          Greg Roy, my general education colleague, has, as I have said before on this blog, taught me a great deal about math and math instruction.   He and I disagree about mastery, by the way, but that doesn’t impair our ability to collaborate.   He moves at his speed, and I move at a different one,  but we’re both moving forward.

          Anyway, Greg’s a proponent of math routines, and he does them at the beginning of the day as well as at the beginning of a math class.  Routines are great, for several reasons. 

          • First, they provide kids with ongoing practice of previously-learned skills.  My routines always have problems from lessons we have worked on since the beginning of the year – usually types of problems the kids struggled with mightily, so that the skills will become firmly embedded. 

(A recent math routine had a word problem involving adding negative numbers, 2 fraction simplifications, 1 changing from mixed fraction to improper fraction, 1 changing improper fraction to a mixed number, and 2 dealing with multiplying decimals by 10, because my kids bombed that area on the last unit test for some reason, as well as a problem from yesterday’s lesson.)

         The kids get to use their notes and math encyclopedias on the routines, and we go over the results really quickly.  The whole thing takes about 15 minutes each day. 

         • The second benefit of a daily routine is that they give you a snapshot of each student at that moment.  This is particularly helpful as you plan your instruction.  I can tell at a glance how many of the kids in my class have mastered yesterday’s lesson or skill, and what the next steps might be.  Because I make my kids show their work on each routine, I can pinpoint where in the process of problem-solving they are struggling. 

          • Finally they give kids a terrific sense of competence.  As they experience over a series of weeks and months the increasing ease of solving problems using skills they’ve learned, they realize that they can do it, that they are actually good at it. 

         The other day, a parent of one of my general education math students told me that her daughter, who has always struggled with math, is coming home saying “hey, mom!  I’m smart at math!”  This student is the first to raise her hand in my class, the first to want to show the class how she solved a problem, the first to ask questions, and the first to finish her work these days.  It’s not because of me; it’s because every day, when she starts learning math, she is reminded that she’s already got terrific skills.

          Many special educators neglect daily routines, or don’t make their routines as comprehensive as they should be.  We need to recognize that our kids should have multiple opportunities, over a long period of time, to practice newly-mastered skills, or those skills will evaporate like steam after a shower. 

          We need to challenge our kids daily, while at the same time reminding them that they have ability already, or they will never challenge themselves, and never remind themselves of how far they’ve come.

          We need to push, push, push our kids, using all of their strengths, innate and learned, or they will never catch up to their general education peers. 

          In a demanding classroom, mastery is not something to be admired and then ignored; it’s about skill sets we use, reuse, and apply in newer ways on a regular basis.

demanding classroom · high expectations · learning disabled · mastery · math instruction · proficiency · rigor · rigorous instruction · routines · Sara Finegan · skills practice · special education · standards · student monitoring · supports

By Sara Finegan

         There has long been a debate about the issue of teaching to mastery.  When districts and states set up learning modules on a schedule, or a series of standards to meet each year, the inclination of many teachers is to get through as many of them as possible. Some schools and districts place a great deal of pressure on teachers to move forward, and to keep moving through the year.

         I’m not averse to having a set of outcomes to work toward and achieve each year for each grade level. I am against moving forward before our kids really have become proficient at new skills, strategies, and knowledge.

         In a demanding classroom, we don’t get stuck in a routine of doing the same work over and over, and we don’t adhere to other people’s schedules about when learning should be accomplished. Instead, we focus on cementing new skills, step-by-step, concept-by-concept, so that when the foundation of math, science, and other learning is complete, there are as few weak spots as possible.

         If you think about it, if we move kids forward before they really get the previous unit or skill, you are building a house of cards on quicksand. Nothing is going to really stick and the child is going to be aware on a pretty consistent basis that he or she is missing something.

         And what are we teaching kids about learning if we do it this way? It seems to me that we are saying to our children: Learning isn’t about mastering information and strategies; it’s about zipping through lessons to completion rather than to skill.

         Given that one of the major issues for kids with special needs is that they rush through work, getting it done rather than getting it right, aren’t we re-enforcing their own poor learning habits when we teach to completion over quality?

         Many will argue that teaching to mastery takes too much time, and that we don’t have the extra hours or days to ensure that all of our students become proficient at each new lesson.

         I disagree. It isn’t necessarily so. It all depends on how we teach the new information or skills, and what kind and what quality of practice we give our students.

         It also depends on the manner in which we release responsibility back to kids as they work. If we jump too quickly from “I show you” to “you do it,” mastery will take much longer than if we move, increment by increment, from “I show you,” to “I show you again,” to “we do it together,” to “we do it together more,” to “you and a partner do it,, to “try it again, and I’ll be right here,” to “hey, try it and I’ll step back a bit,” to “hey, you can do this!”

         All of that, by the way, doesn’t take place in math, for example, for weeks and weeks; it’s really a matter of days.

demanding classroom · high expectations · learning disabled · mastery · modules · proficiency · rigor · rigorous instruction · Sara Finegan · special education · standards

By Sara Finegan

         In a demanding classroom, student work isn’t just the work they produce themselves, but also their  thinking and talking about other people’s work.  If our students aren’t able to evaluate the job that others are doing, they won’t be able to discern the quality of their own work, and make the appropriate adjustements.

         In my classroom, students know what constitutes a Proficient Level job on any given assignment.  (In California, achievement is based on the following levels:  Proficient, which indicates mastery, Advanced, which indicates that the work is too easy for the student, Basic, which is the minimal standard of competence, Below Basic, and Far Below Basic.) 

         My students are always aiming for Proficiency Level in their work and that is the standard upon which we base evaluations of our work.

         When my students engage in reading, writing, social studies, science, or math activities, they become quickly involved in helping to create a checklist or rubric for each type of work.

          We all know, for example, that a Proficient Level math assignment involving word problems has the following components:  the student has underlined the key vocabulary that tells us what type of operation to use; the student has drawn a diagram or picture of the problem; the student has created and solved a numerical equation, and the student has written the answer in a complete sentence.

         When assignments are completed, other students go over the work using the checklist we’ve created and determines which of the components are present and which are missing.  It’s a quick and easy way for both the worker and the evaluator to get a picture of how close to Proficient Level the work is.  If the work has been done in class, the student has the opportunity to immediately add in missing components.  If the work was done at home, it is sent back to be done as additional homework.

This practice can be done with almost any grade and competency level.  In younger kids, perhaps the checklist has clip art and just a few words for each item to be evaluated.  I’ve also seen instances where the teacher prepares a model assignment and highlights the required features, so that student graders can easily see and compare student work to the standard. 

         I usually type up the checklist on three columns of paper and cut them in strips.  My Peer Checkers staple the checklist to assignments as they are turned in.  We aim for a one-day turnaround. 

         Evaluation activities done by Peer Checkers takes several different forms.  When we are learning a new skill, my preferred method for going over work is have all students exchange work with someone else.  We each get a copy of the checklist and staple it to the work we are evaluating.

         Then, using the document camera, I will take a blank worksheet or one student’s work and we will go through the checklist together.  Students have the opportunity to ask me and the other students questions.

          This is particularly important in writing, science, or social studies worksheets where students use their own words to answer questions.  There are, of course, many ways of stating the answer, and the kids need to see that proficiency can look like several different ways.  They also need help sometimes to see that even though an answer may appear to be content-correct, if our standard for Proficiency is that the answer be written as a complete sentence, a one or two word answer, or one without a pronoun, will not match the expected level for work.  

Proficient, Basic, or Below Basic

         Once we’ve gone through the checklist, Peer Checkers will determine whether the answer is Proficient, Basic, or Below Basic (P, B, or BB) and mark it at the top of the paper before returning it to the original student for review. 

         At this point, we take a quick survey of the class to see how many achieved Proficiency for that assignment, and talk briefly about what the next steps might be to improve.  It’s important that each student be able to verbalize what he or she will be focusing on the next time around.

Later in the unit, as the kids are more competent and confident about the concepts or skills they are using, I will assign small groups of 2 or 3 students per day to evaluate assignments.  This is a classroom privilege, as it indicates our trust in them to objectively review the work, be supportive of others rather than tearing down, and notify us all when a celebration is in order.

          And celebrations are important.  Because we are all evaluating one another’s work, students are very aware of who is struggling and needs support, and who has surmounted an obstacle and needs recognition.  Our class Celebrations Committee keeps track of those sorts of things and provides peer mentoring and extra help as well as notifying me that it’s time to bake cupcakes or dig out the dance cds.

         The benefits of these systems are many.  Kids see numerous examples of the type of work they and others are doing, and have ownership of their work product.  They have a yardstick by which to measure their progress and immediate feedback, quite often, about their product.  Grading in this way helps the kids see what things they need to do to improve in a safe and inspiring way.

         When our grading process is a mystery to students, they become dependent on our feedback for their work.  The longer they remain dependent on our valuation of what they do, the more difficult it is for them to develop an objective internal measure of themselves. 

         If we involve them in the standards-setting, support them in the evaluation process, and keep challenging them to do better, they will take on more responsibility for their own work and learning.  They also will develop the confidence that they can achieve high things.

         This process also helps me as a teacher.  When we are all looking at student work and measuring progress in this fashion against a pre-determined standard, I can easily see when it is time to design a new or better intervention to boost skills that aren’t moving up the ladder towards Proficiency.

         I often think I’ve done a terrific job teaching a lesson and go home celebrating the fact that ‘everyone seems to be getting it’, only to discover over the course of the next few days that actually, they did not get it, or if they did, it didn’t stick.  At that point I can step back and rethink how I teach that skill, and try again. 

We never lower the bar, we re-teach

         It’s important to remember that we are never going to compromise the standard of Proficiency.  When kids aren’t meeting the mark, it’s cause for more practice and re-teaching, not lowering the bar.  We’re pushing each other up, not pulling the standard down.

          To begin to incorporate student evaluation of the work of others and their own work, you need to make sure everyone in the classroom knows what the standards are for each type of assignment.

         This happens naturally if you spend just a little time working with the kids to go over the components of a good example of any type of assignment.  I do a lot of charting in my class, with step-by-step procedures for most new skills and types of assignments.  We use those charts to create a new chart called “What does a Proficient Level ______ look like?”  The kids participate in making a list of the features or components of the assignment, and we keep it visible in the room as we work.

         I also will type up a copy of the chart to paste into student journals or folders.  There’s no point in assigning kids home practice if they can’t remember when they get there what their practice is supposed to look like. 

          So what happens with all of this involvement in one another’s work?  Well, in a demanding classroom, students are engaged in one another’s work in a positive way, they internalize expectations and quality standards, and they know what they need to do to improve.  There is less focus on what they can’t do and far more on what the next steps are along the road to mastery. 

         And that makes all the difference in the struggle to learn.

checklists · demanding classroom · high expectations · learning disabled · peer evaluations · proficiency · rigor · rigorous instruction · rubrics · Sara Finegan · special education · standards

By Sara Finegan 

           Some students are so far behind that they cannot keep up with a general education class.  Some students process in a way that requires more time, more space, more opportunities for practice, and a slower pace in order to master new concepts. 

           Some students need a small group – less noise, less activity, less chaos – in order to learn.   Some need instruction provided in ways that aren’t commonly found in a general education room – more visuals, more guided work, more modeling, more incremental. 

          All students with learning disabilities need at least one, if not most of these things in order to learn how to learn.  Notice that I didn’t say they  need them in order to learn everything.  Only to learn how to learn. 

 Full inclusion after rigorous preparation

         I favor inclusion of students with special needs in the general education classroom – after they have been given the appropriate, rigorous instruction and practice in the basics that will allow them to function on a par with everyone else.  I do not favor inclusion where the child enters too far behind to ever catch up and spends the rest of his or her school career vainly trying to do what the other students do.   

Our goal as special educators is to help our students bridge the gap between where they are and where they need to be in order to be able to follow along in a general ed classroom, at a general ed pace and in that kind of environment.

         In order to push our kids up to that level, we may have to enfold them in a Special Day Class or separate classroom environment for some or all subjects for a period of time.  In the best of all possible worlds, this would take place in the elementary school level, and by middle school, the vast majority of  kids with IEPs  who had spent time in a Special Day Class would be out in the general school population for most classes. 

How quickly depends on the child and on us

         How quickly we can bring kids up to the appropriate skill levels depends on each child’s areas of need and strength, and the level of rigor we infuse into our classrooms.  A demanding classroom will firmly and lovingly raise students who use their brains like a muscle in a gym, stretching, pressing, and moving from strength to strength.

I’ve had students arrive from other schools or lower grade Special Day Classes who lack the ability to do independent work, who have become so dependent on the assistance of aides and teachers that they are unable to problem-solve and try out new skills.

I’ve seen special education classrooms which rely on endless series of packets and worksheets, done quietly at student desks, where no questioning takes place and compliance with behavioral rules takes precedence over learning. 

And I’ve worked with many colleagues who become so frustrated with their students’ challenges that they lose sight of what we’re working toward and begin to teach so far below grade level that nobody will ever catch up. 

         None of this is going to move our kids from our classrooms into the general education population with any success.  All of this will perpetuate the deficits our kids arrive with. 

Keep in mind what we want for our students

         If we want kids with in our special education classrooms to move from deficit to ability to competence, we must be relentless in our rigor of instruction, and stand firm in our expectations of learning. 

          We must keep our eye on the ultimate goal, which is that we will shoo our students from our learning nest into the big wide world and watch them fly, fly into their lives as learners.

             Rigor is not the equivalent of harshness.  A demanding classroom is a nurturing environment where students are not expected to learn and function on their own, but where scaffolds and supports are in place and are gradually removed or reduced as mastery takes place. 

          A demanding classroom is one whose staff is attentive to the small signs of growth and need, and adjusts instruction accordingly. 

          A demanding classroom is one where students themselves, at all ages,  work with staff to set reasonable, achievable goal and celebrate success. 

          A demanding classroom is one where the teacher’s motto is “yes, you can, let’s work to find out how…” and where failure is seen as an opportunity to try again. 

          A demanding classroom is one where a student who doesn’t get it just hasn’t been taught it the right way yet – and where the staff is committed to finding the right way for that child. 

           A demanding classroom is one where laughter, curiosity, and determination are reflected in the faces and work of the children, and where academic behavior is as important as social behavior.

When we demand of our students…

           When we demand excellence of our students and fail to show them how to achieve it, we are not providing rigorous instruction.

           When we demand competency from our students and don’t support them in their learning, we are not providing rigorous instruction.

          When we require compliance from our students without understanding and ownership, we are not providing rigorous instruction.

           And when we reduce expectations to accommodate learning deficits, we are certainly not exhibiting any rigor at all in our own work.

 If we want our students to be able to do general education work in a general education classroom, we have to teach general education skills, not special education habits.

          We must demand of our own instruction and planning the same thing our colleagues in the general education classroom demand of themselves and their students.  To do less is to abdicate from the position as teacher.

demanding classroom · high expectations · Inclusion · learning disabled · proficiency · rigor · rigorous instruction · Sara Finegan · special day class · special education · standards