I attended the Building Thinking Classroom session on Mathematics at GL last night and am sharing some insights from the session. The turnout was so large that the district changed the venue from the cafeteria to the Auditorium.
The session was informative but primarily focused on the model’s positive aspects and did not mention issues with the program, lessons learned, or any ideas for improvement. This model was rolled out in 2020, shut down due to the pandemic, then restarted. PowerPoint for November 1 information session will be shared after the session.
My Key takeaways:
- Worked to try vertical non-permanent surfaces (VNPS) at GL and CMS (March 2020)
- It is unclear as to whether direct instruction is provided
- It’s students teaching students
- There are 14 different practices for instruction
- Current methods of delivery: Paper, verbal, and written
- No mention of accommodations made for special needs students
- Students can request Math textbooks (Need to confirm if hardcopy textbooks are available)
The Math Supervisor answered most of the questions submitted via the link but refused to take in-person questions from the parents in the Auditorium. It was a missed opportunity to listen to parents’ concerns – time should have been allocated for parent questions, and unanswered questions could have been responded to after the session.
Concerns were mainly around the grading system employed at GL. Also, one of our neighboring districts has a hybrid model of 75% instruction, and the rest is a collaborative thinking classroom.
While informative, not much was done to respond to parents’ concerns. The lack of two-way communication, acknowledgment of issues or a roadmap for improvement appeared to arouse frustration and fear among parents. One parent commented to me privately the feeling that his child had been a guinea pig in a series of botched experiments by the District over the past three years. Seeing what has been occurring at all levels of our District, it is hard to argue with that belief.
At the end I had a few thoughts about the overall approach. If this is the primary method of teaching Math, consider incorporating direct instruction, which has proven results. Perhaps the answer is a hybrid model with direct instruction and thinking sessions. Math also requires some form of memorization and repetition, and it is a proven way of teaching. Maybe a model that emphasizes both memorization and repetition with thinking sessions as an add-on might be a better model.
These are my thoughts and opinions as an individual and do not represent the opinion of the Berkeley Heights Board of Education. Although I am a Berkeley Heights School Board member, I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the Board.
-Sai Akiri
Related Articles:
THINKING CLASSROOM OR SINKING CLASSROOM
BEYOND STANDARDIZED TESTS AND METRICS
ONE MORE REALLY LONG ARTICLE ABOUT PROFICIENCIES AND METRICS
SLIDING GRADES AND PROFICIENCIES
GOALS, PERFORMANCE, AND METRICS
9 thoughts on “My Thoughts on the Thinking Classroom Information Session”