I was one of the parents who attended the information session on November 1st. I’ve had some parents reach out to me regarding this methodology but I was surprised at how many parents were upset with impact it’s having on their kids and how the administration treated their concerns.
I was happy to see that the administration communicated that they were re-evaluating the approach. I emailed Dr. Varley thanking the administration for taking this step and listed some feedback that I heard from parents as well as my own:
- grades are not just an issue for Juniors and Seniors
- the noise generated in the classroom is problematic for some kids especially those with auditory processing issues
- there is too much variability between groups and between classrooms on a daily basis. This seems to push all students towards the middle. In any given group, a student may be bored but another student may be frustrated. It doesn’t seem to allow for individuals to excel.
- given the variability between classrooms, how can we ensure that all kids are learning the full curriculum?
- this feels very over-engineered with 14 practices
- implementing this program when teachers are not fully trained and not all practices implemented at a point where we have a learning gap will likely widen the gap
- on a personal level, I want my child to learn from a teacher. The teacher is best equipped to explain difficult concepts. I had an experience when my son was studying for a test from notes that were a result of group work. Some of the answers were wrong. Had I not checked, he would have gone into a test with incorrect information.
Much to my surprise, the re-valuation took less than a day to complete with minimal changes. I would think the amount of angst and concern would merit a longer and more thorough evaluation period.
I’m not sure what is meant by hybrid as it is described in the Math Supervisor’s note. Does a teacher spending a bit more time during the consolidation and note taking portions of the class really constitute a hybrid approach? Is this on paper so each teacher has guidelines of how much supported instruction to provide?
From the session, we learned that the teachers have not yet implemented toolkit 4 which includes the grading piece. The communication from the Math Supervisor did not address the question of grades (what is the process for reassessment?) nor the insufficient teacher training.
What is most upsetting for me is the use of class time to educate students on their role. Their role is to learn, to ask questions when they don’t understand, and have their teacher answer them. But now, their role is to teach. This doesn’t make sense to me especially at the high school level.
A different approach could have been to introduce this model maybe in 6th grade and then have that cohort continue in 7th, etc. By the time that class gets to high school, they would have had 3 years of this type of instruction. Or there could have been a true hybrid approach for that was a mix of traditional learning as well thinking classroom learning. And with any approach, the teachers should be fully prepared to implement. What is the rush?
When an A student starts getting Cs and Ds, there is obviously something wrong. I understand that this approach may benefit some kids but the way this was implemented, feels like there is more damage than benefit. I encourage the administration to take a step back, take the time to really evaluate this approach and really LISTEN to the parents.
Related Articles
MY THOUGHTS ON THE THINKING CLASSROOM INFORMATION SESSION
THINKING CLASSROOM OR SINKING CLASSROOM
BEYOND STANDARDIZED TESTS AND METRICS
ONE MORE REALLY LONG ARTICLE ABOUT PROFICIENCIES AND METRICS
SLIDING GRADES AND PROFICIENCIES
7 thoughts on “Thinking Classrooms and Parent Concerns”