Classical Charter School 102

Overview of Presentation1. The Two Schools of Thought in Education

• How do they differ?

2. Our Approach•“Philosophy” vs. Research•Designing Instruction•Myths About Teaching and Learning•Cognitive Science•Pedagogy Summary•Special Education•Gifted Education

3. School Management and Culture4. Answer your questions

Schools of Thoughtin Education

The Two Main Schools of ThoughtThe following slides were derived from this book, written by Dr. Jeanne Chall, renowned Professor of Education at

Harvard University

The Two Main Schools of ThoughtThere are two main schools of thought in education, each

of which are referred to by a number of terms.

The terms do not indicate political leanings. Some liberal scholars favor traditional education, and vice versa.

Most education schools lean toward the progressive approach.

“Traditional” “Progressive”

Teacher-ledInstructivist

ScientificStructured

Student-centeredConstructivist

RomanticNatural

The Two Main Schools of ThoughtThese schools of thought are idealized archetypes

that are useful for comparing educational approaches.

In reality, no school (or teacher, for that matter) is entirely traditional or progressive.

A discussion of the differences in approaches is a discussion about leanings, not absolutes.

We’ll summarize some of the differences…

The Two Main Schools of ThoughtCurriculum

“Traditional” “Progressive”

A core curriculum based on the traditional disciplines of reading, writing, literature, math, science, social studies, and art—arranged in increasing order of difficulty.

School learning should be based on the child’s interests and needs. Theoretically there is no required core curriculum that is arranged hierarchically. Subject matter is not structured. The emphasis is on the learning process and on a variety of subjects that are integrated to make them more meaningful.

All content on this slide was derived from “The Academic Achievement Challenge”, Jeanne Chall, pp 187-192

The Two Main Schools of ThoughtView of Student Learning

“Traditional” “Progressive”

Students are expected to learn what is taught. What is taught should be as interesting as possible, but it is selected because it fits within an overall hierarchy of learning tasks.

Ideally, the best learning comes when students are interested in what they learn. Therefore, teachers are to encourage students to follow their own interests in their learning.

All content on this slide was derived from “The Academic Achievement Challenge”, Jeanne Chall, pp 187-192

The Two Main Schools of ThoughtAttitude Toward Instructional Materials

“Traditional” “Progressive”

Textbooks are important to assure minimal coverage of content. Additional materials are recommended as well, for example, encyclopedias and other reference works, books, newspapers, etc.

Textbooks are not preferred because they are considered dull and not geared to the individual needs and interests of students. For science, hands-on experiences are preferred to reading materials.

All content on this slide was derived from “The Academic Achievement Challenge”, Jeanne Chall, pp 187-192

The Two Main Schools of ThoughtHow Student Difficulties Are Explained and Treated

“Traditional” “Progressive”

If the student is failing, the tendency is to look into what he or she has not learned and how it can be provided by the school. Behavioral and emotional problems are also recognized as possible causes…but there is a greater emphasis on treating academic difficulties directly, even if the causes are nonacademic.

The cause for academic difficulties is usually sought in non educational factors—lack of motivation, emotional problems, or a troubled home. For students in first grade, a lack of progress is often stated in terms of a lack of readiness.

All content on this slide was derived from “The Academic Achievement Challenge”, Jeanne Chall, pp 187-192

The Two Main Schools of ThoughtFocus: Intellect or Motivation?

“Traditional” “Progressive”

The emphasis is on the intellect—on academic learning. Motivation and affect are not ignored, but the major focus is on academic learning, and motivation and affect are important only as they influence academic learning.

The emphasis is on affect and motivation, with less emphasis on the content of what is learned. In order for student to be motivated to learn math and science, certain programs may be preferred because students find them more interesting and exciting.

All content on this slide was derived from “The Academic Achievement Challenge”, Jeanne Chall, pp 187-192

Our Approach

Our ApproachQuite often we are asked,

“What is your educational philosophy?”

From our perspective, that’s the wrong question to ask.

Education should not be about following a “philosophy” or strongly-held belief system.

What works is an question of evidence, not philosophy.

If we have a “philosophy”, it is empiricism coupled with a heavy dose of common sense.

Our ApproachWe choose approaches based on solid research where it

is available, and logical extension of known findings where conclusive research is not available.

We are a classical school, but we don’t rigidly adhere to a classical “philosophy” or make instructional decisions

based primarily on how “classical” an approach is.

However, many of the approaches commonly used in the classical approach are well-supported by research (such

as phonics in reading instruction, for example).

Our ApproachSo what does research say?

“[T]he traditional, teacher-centered approach generally produced higher academic achievement than the

progressive, student-centered approach. Only one study reported few consistent differences in achievement

between the progressive and traditional schools. But, it should be noted, none found that progressive, informal

education resulted in higher academic achievement than the more formal, traditional education.”

-The Academic Achievement Challenge, page 170

Our ApproachResearch also shows that the more traditional

approaches are better for less well-prepared students, those with disabilities at all social levels.

Students taught with traditional approaches like school more and have higher self-esteem compared to students

taught through progressive approaches.

However, research does not conclude that traditional approaches are better in every circumstance.

More research on specific ways to teach specific topics to children of different age levels and abilities is needed.

Our ApproachUnfortunately, most education “theory” is speculative,

not a theory in the scientific sense.

A scientific theory is based on a body of evidence that has accumulated over a long period of time.

Our approach has been to research each subject area to determine if scientific research supports particular

approaches in that subject.

Though not conclusive in all areas, well-conducted education studies, cognitive science, and the design of

effective programs point to similar practices.

Our Approach“Theory of Instruction” puts forth a education theory in

the scientific sense.

The programs used by the very successful Baltimore Curriculum Project implement this theory.

It provides useful ideas for designing instruction that are based in research, but it is really, really hard to read.

Our ApproachAnother book, “Introduction to Direct Instruction”, provides a simpler explanation of the same ideas.

We will train teachers in this approach, so that they have another tool in their toolkit; this is not the only one.

Now, we’ll briefly explain it to you!

Designing InstructionThe theory makes two assumptions about students:

1. Students can learn any quality through examples.

2. Students can generalize based on sameness of quality.

We didn’t have to teach the second example, despite its different shape. The student generalized from the first.

Teacher: “The color is orange”

Teacher: “What color?”Student:“Orange”

Designing InstructionIf students learn from examples, then the trick is to

present the examples so learning is easier.

There is a sophisticated set of rules to create what is called “logically faultless communication”.

The fundamental principle is: Examples must result in a single interpretation with no misconceptions.

See if you can figure out what is wrong with this…

Designing InstructionTeacher: “I’m going to illustrate some fractions.”

This teaches students the misconception that fractions have the smaller number on top and the bigger one on the bottom, and has no examples with zeros. The presentation should include examples such as 8/5, 0/7, and 5/5.

Let’s try another example. What’s wrong here?

31

75

52

Designing InstructionTeacher: “This line is horizontal”

Teacher: “This line is not horizontal”

This violates the “difference principle”, which states that examples and non-examples should be alike except for the critical feature you are trying to teach. Students will think that a line has to be vertical to be “not horizontal”.

Here is how the presentation should be corrected. It shows the minimum difference needed to communicate what “not horizontal” means.

Example from “Introduction to Direct Instruction”, page 33

Designing InstructionHow you juxtapose examples matters.

We’ll illustrate by teaching you something.

You can generalize to new, untaught examples because the sequence quickly taught you what “vudged” meant.

Illustration from http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/387/OpenModules/Engelmann/theory.shtml

Designing InstructionThe kinds of problems students are assigned also need to

reflect a full range of examples.

American teachers tend to assign fraction problems that involve pizzas, pies, and other concrete items.1

Chinese teachers assign a full range of problems that use the concept of fractions in more abstract ways, such as work problems: “If Fred can finish a job in 5 hours and

John can finish the same job in 3 hours, how long will it take both of them to finish it.”

1 “Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics”, Liping Ma, page 76

Designing InstructionGenerally speaking, there are four forms of knowledge,

each of which has an associated presentation technique. Form Example Teaching Technique

Verbal Association

“A, E, I, O, and U” are vowels.

Present this one example.

Concept Vehicle Present examples of vehicles and non-vehicles.

Rule Relationship

The higher the temperature, the more atoms move.

Present examples and non-examples of the rule.

Cognitive Strategy

How to carry numbers when you add.

Present pre-requisite knowledge and the steps in the strategy.

Designing InstructionThere are many more principles like these, and various ways of presenting material in accordance with those

principles.

We won’t cover that now.

But the main point is this: Teaching is technical.

Our approach focuses on the minutia of presentation techniques and the sequencing of content, and regards

well-designed lesson plans as the heart and soul of educational improvement.

Myths About Teaching and LearningBut to improve, we first have to avoid misleading beliefs.

Well-intended but unproductive myths about teaching and learning that are prominent in education schools and

are documented in these books and other research.

Myths About Teaching and Learning“Learning Styles”

Common Belief Students have different learning styles and lessons designed with these styles in mind will be more effective. Those styles (sometimes called modalities) include visual, kinesthetic, and auditory.

What’s Wrong There is no empirical evidence for learning styles. Studies that attempted to identify students’ learning styles and taught students in that style found little difference in achievement.1 The myth of learning styles has been repeated under different names (such as “global” and “analytical” learners2) for over 40 years without proof.

Our Approach Students may differ in their learning preferences, but trying to tailor instruction to these preferences does not provide an advantage. Teachers should teach in the modality that is best for the content itself and not worry about learning styles. Doing otherwise may actually shortchange some students.3

1http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer2005/cogsci.htm,2http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall99/DiffStrokes.pdf, 3http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer2005/cogscisb.htm

Myths About Teaching and Learning“Multiple Intelligences”

Common Belief There are separate kinds of intelligence such as linguistic, loco-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and so on, and lessons that appeal to these different intelligences will be more effective.

What’s Wrong Mainstream researchers regard intelligence as hierarchical (meaning that students will tend to score better in some areas than others), but closely related to general intelligence (meaning that a student’s scores across all areas will tend to correlate.)1 MI theory is not well regarded among mainstream psychologists and has not been tested2. Even Howard Gardner, who originated the theory, did not intend it to be a blueprint for teaching, and said he was uneasy about the way his theory has been used in schools.3

Our Approach Teachers should not concern themselves with appealing to “multiple intelligences”. Instead, they should focus on a logical sequence of instruction that builds on students’ prior skills.4

1http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3261311.html, 2http://vocationalpsychology.com/essay_10_gardner.htm,3http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1495588,00.html, 4http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall99/DiffStrokes.pdf

Myths About Teaching and Learning“Authentic Learning”

Common Belief Students will learn best if learning is “authentic” in the sense that it deals with real world problems and applications. Under this theory, it would be better to learn about pollution in the context of doing a project for a science fair than learning it apart from a specific application.

What’s Wrong Real world problems are often ineffective for initial teaching because they have too many features that can cause misconceptions. They can lead to overly specific learning that does not transfer to new situations. In one famous experiment, a few minutes of abstract instruction enabled novices to learn what it took experts years to discover through real world experience.1

Our Approach When developing activities and practice problems, teachers should focus on the cognitive processes they evoke, not their real-world trappings. Teacher-led instruction is often more efficient, effective, and generalizable than learning through experiences and projects. Nearly all skills can be successfully decomposed into smaller skills that can be taught and mastered independently and then combined to teach the larger, more complicated skill.

1http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html

Myths About Teaching and Learning“Discovery Learning” and “Rote Memorization”

Common Belief Constructivism is based on the belief that learners create their own knowledge structures rather than merely receiving them from others, and advocates that learning involving minimal guidance from the teacher is better because it facilitates students understanding and avoids “rote memorization”.

What’s Wrong It is true that learning is an active process, but constructivism as it is usually defined is misleading since it implies that teacher-led instruction is not desirable. Students learn more in classes where teachers spend much of their time teaching or supervising students.2 As one expert explains, “There is very little positive evidence for discovery learning and it is often inferior. In particularly, it may be costly in time, and when the search is lengthy or unsuccessful, motivation commonly flags.”1

Our Approach Teachers should spend much of their time directly instructing, guiding, or supervising students, and should not be reluctant to build up students’ factual knowledge. The initial stages of learning involve acquiring “inflexible knowledge”, which is different from “rote memorization”. Inflexible knowledge is the foundation for later expertise and an important part of the learning process. Flexible knowledge and understanding will develop as students acquire more knowledge, see more examples, and practice more.3

1http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html, 2http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech06.html3http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/winter2002/CogSci.html

Myths About Teaching and Learning“Fun and Interesting”

Common Belief Students will learn more if lessons are fun and interesting. Hands on learning will be more interesting and appeal to various “learning styles”. (Note how the myths are mutually reinforcing.) Learning should be effortless, or at least mildly entertaining. Entertaining activities motivate students. You can judge a lesson by how engaged in it students are.

What’s Wrong The entertainment value of a lesson and the level of student engagement should not be the measures of a lesson’s success. Rather, attaining specific learning outcomes is the proper measure. Learning is not effortless—it requires hard work. Though it is good to made lessons interesting, too many activities or those of questionable value end up reducing students’ opportunity to learn. Supposedly “fun” activities often waste time, divert students’ attention from the important substance of the lesson, cease to be interesting after a short period of novelty, and avoid the practice necessary for students to achieve real competence.

Our Approach School work is the work of childhood. Though it certainly can be fun and interesting, learning is quite often challenging, and requires discipline to succeed. Behavior management skills are more effective in motivating student learning than fun activities. Fun activities are good for providing variety within the instructional program. Hands on activities should be used when research or common sense suggests that the activity is likely to achieve a equivalent or better outcome than other approaches.

This slide was derived from “Myths and Misconceptions about Teaching”, Dr. Vicki Snider, pages 45-59

Myths About Teaching and Learning“Eclectic Teaching”

Common Belief Mixing and matching various materials is the best way to meet learners’ unique needs. Teaching is not technical, and attempts to make it so be providing pre-packaged curricula that provide specific teaching techniques are demeaning to students and teachers. Student characteristics should guide instruction.

What’s Wrong Teaching is artful, but designing a set of validated lesson plans is very technical and involves extensive field testing. Eclectic teaching may provide an outlet for teachers’ creativity, but validated lessons that are based on careful analysis and research work best when teachers follow them. Though no one approach works for all students, some practices are better than others, and there is a high probability that validated lessons will work better than the alternatives for most students. When teachers piece together an instructional program from various sources, the components of the programs may not work together.

Our Approach Good curriculum design reflects principles from well-conducted education research, cognitive science, and psychology. The common converging themes from these areas are: provide scaffolded instruction; address different forms of knowledge; use techniques to help students store, retrieve, and organize knowledge; teach strategies to promote independence; teach explicitly; highlight sameness within and across subject matter to promote generalization. Teachers do need to be smarter than the programs they use, but the programs must provide a system of delivery that helps teachers achieve results.

This slide was derived from “Myths and Misconceptions about Teaching”, Dr. Vicki Snider, pages 60-84

Myths About Teaching and Learning“The Good or Heroic Teacher”

Common Belief Good teachers are the most important variable in students’ success—outweighing teaching techniques, curriculum, school climate, organization, and leadership. How dedicated a teacher is determines whether his or her students will learn.

What’s Wrong Just because a teacher has dispositions well-suited to teaching and a commitment to students and to a particular teaching approach doesn’t mean students will learn. Good teachers are made, not born, and making good teachers requires professional development in specific knowledge and skills that have been shown to work. Without effective curricula and professional development students won’t learn as well as they could, regardless of how dynamic or well-organized the teacher is.

Our Approach Teaching is an art and a science. Talented teachers who can make a big difference in the classroom are needed. We will put teachers through a highly competitive selection process, and also give them the best curricular materials we can find. The goal is good teaching in the hands of good teachers in an environment that facilitates their success. We don’t rely on individual heroics to achieve success.

This slide was derived from “Myths and Misconceptions about Teaching”, Dr. Vicki Snider, pages 85-105

Cognitive ScienceSo those are the myths. What about the science?

Cognitive science, which studies how the brain works, reaches similar conclusions. Top cognitive scientist Dr.

Daniel Willingham wrote an excellent book for teachers, which we’ll summarize on the next slides.

Cognitive Science“The brain is not designed for thinking.”

The brain is designed to avoid having to think, since thinking is slow and unreliable. If students thinks a problem is solvable, they’ll be more

motivated to think because it is more likely that they will experience the rush that comes with success.

This slide was derived from “Why Don’t Students Like School”, by Dr. Daniel Willingham, page 3

Cognitive Science“Factual knowledge must precede skill.”

“Higher-order” thinking skills and knowledge are intertwined. You can’t think about something unless you

have enough knowledge about it.

Factual knowledge improves your memory.

However, knowledge must be meaningful. Lists of disconnected facts are not helpful.

Factual knowledge should be related to the other facts and concepts students know.

This slide was derived from “Why Don’t Students Like School”, by Dr. Daniel Willingham, pages 19-39

Cognitive Science“Memory is the residue of thought.”

The human memory system is designed to remember things that you think about carefully, since that means you’ll probably have to

think about it again.

Therefore, discovery learning should be used judiciously, since students may actually be more likely to think about

misconceptions and remember those!

Stories are “psychologically privileged”, and treated differently in memory than other information—organizing lessons around a

story or in the form of a story may help student retention.

This slide was derived from “Why Don’t Students Like School”, by Dr. Daniel Willingham, pages 40

Cognitive Science“It is virtually impossible to become proficient at a

mental task without extensive practice.”

Practice makes mental processes automatic, which frees short term memory to perform higher-order thinking.

Practice improves the ability of the mind to transfer ideas to another application, and see the underlying structure, or what educators call “deep conceptual understanding.”

Practicing for a short duration (10 minutes) over a longer period (several weeks) is better than practicing for a longer duration (5 hours) over a short period (1 day).

This slide was derived from “Why Don’t Students Like School”, by Dr. Daniel Willingham, pages 81-95

Cognitive Science“Children do differ in intelligence, but intelligence can be

changed through sustained hard work.”

For young children, genes account for roughly 20% of intelligence, and have a increasing relationship to

intelligence as we age (60% ).

Students need to see that their efforts create better academic results, and should be praised for their effort,

not their ability.

This slide was derived from “Why Don’t Students Like School”, by Dr. Daniel Willingham, pages 131-145

Pedagogy SummaryStudents will be taught through a variety of instructional

approaches supported by research.

The techniques used will be selected for effectiveness and efficiency.

Teaching is both an art and a science.

We’ll provide teachers with training in technical aspects of the craft that can make a difference for students.

We define “a modern approach to classical education” as using data and research to drive improvements.

Special EducationWe’ll use a Response to Intervention (RtI) model.

Unlike the “wait for failure” model this takes a proactive approach that catches kids before they fail.

Differentiation begins with regular classroom instruction.

Students who struggle are given interventions and monitored on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.

Their response to intervention is monitored using data.

More or different interventions are added until students get back on track.

Special EducationRtI uses a tiered approach. Students receive increasingly

specialized services as they move through the tiers.

The goal is to prevent failure before it happens.

Few(1-5%)

Some (5-10%)

Most(80-90%)

Gifted EducationProvisions for “gifted and talented” pupils are not

regarded as a privilege or reward for high-achieving students, but as a necessary academic intervention to

help students reach their potential.

In a similar fashion as for special education, students who need more challenge may receive enriched or accelerated

instruction.

Gifted education doesn’t mean adding work.

It means teaching students in a way that other students would not be able to be taught.

Schools Management and Culture

School Management and CultureThe Board of Trustees sets the policy for the school.

The Board of Advisors consists of locally and nationally known figures in business, law, and education.

Frederick Classical Charter School, Inc.

FCPSBoard of Education

Board of Trustees

Board of Advisors

School Management and CultureSeveral slogans describe our school’s culture:

High standards, low pressure“Motivation begins with success.”1

“Climb the mountain”2

“There are no shortcuts”3

Books, not looks.Ask the seven “whys”.

1 http://www.brainsarefun.com/words.html 2 This slogan comes from the Knowledge Is Power Program.3 This slogan comes from Rafe Esquith. See http://www.amazon.com/There-Are-Shortcuts-teacher-winner-Award-inspires/dp/0375422021