Credit Recovery at a Distance

Please comment on this post. It is only meant as a start for brainstorming or refinement and it has errors in fact and judgement.

An online program, LearningStation, that the Alt Ed principal found at CUE has been approved for use by the district at the CRC. It should be noted that the district goal is not to conflict with DataDirector. While DataDirector can generate tests, LS allows online student testing in addition to scantrons. It is also easier to use. When DataDirector improves a bit more LS will go away.

For $2 per student per year, a student can take tests, generated by teachers from a standards-based test bank or personally. It is reasonable to make several tests (hopefully randomized questions), so that students can take them in a 'light, proctored' setting. For example, in the PC lab after school with a monitor such as a parent volunteer (no cell phones, etc.). Please note that a cell phone means cheating automatically: take a picture, send it, text received "b." Welcome to Trabuco Hills.

In short, this would allow credit recovery at a distance in a variety of courses. I will try to coordinate it with a non-CRC high school, but I only have a few non-CRC licenses available. An independent study teacher would have to approve of the test and sign off on results in this situation. However, math is the toughest to test-out subject. Failures can be enrolled in a standard online class (Geometry, Algebra 1, Algebra 2). A certain number of hours or attainment of a completion level can be demanded before either retaking an LS test or a 'light, proctored' test (e.g. ALEKS).

The weakness with this base level is no personal instruction. An alternative could be modelled as an afterschool summer school CRC however. A teacher for math or science could be present to assist students. It may not be necessary to staff it every day. It would depend on the number of students.

AfterSchool Credit Recovery

Student Characteristics

50 ninth and tenth grade students, who had failed either Algebra 1A or Geometry A undertook an afterschool program to earn a C in those classes while concurrently enrolled in Algebra 1B or Geometry B. Three students did not complete enough coursework; although they did attend, off and on, through the end of the course.

Less than 10% actually struggled to comprehend the material. The rest fit two profiles:

1. active in activities that had taken priority over math for several years
2. disliked teacher and/or had missing homework count for too high of a percentage to pass

On the other hand, the students from this school, could work for extended periods without supervision; unlike the other three high schools in the district. This is what really sets the school apart. However, the students just could not juggle time to learn math taught in a particular style while satisfying their personal priorities. Texting was their most common addiction and/or sports ate their time.

Design of Instruction

For credit, students were told that they needed to attend for 60 class hours.

1. While not strictly needed from a credit recovery basis, the fact that no student passed an initial test-out meant that math schoolwork needed to be accomplished.
2. The school is paid on a per student hour basis. Too few students makes the afterschool program unable to sustain itself. All students needed to be enrolled for the entire time.
3. Main Problem: Given that these students are actually far behind in mathematics, 60 hours, far less than what is normally found in a semester, really cannot help them achieve proficiency unless accelerated methods are used:

• Adaptive math instruction with continuous formative assessment
• Calculators for adding fractions to speed students through material (a necessary evil)

Instructional Solutions

1. ALEKS online, data-driven, math software
2. Casio fx-300ES two-line calculator with natural display inputs and outputs.
3. Teacher provides one-on-one tutorials on an as-needed basis.
4. Students start where they are mathematically comfortable before they undertake specific class coursework. This builds confidence and addresses underlying issues. The mutual burden is for the teacher to press each student to work as fast as possible and students to understand why. This remains problematic at other high schools, but was well-accepted at this school.
5. With continuous formative assessment, no summative assessment is given. Doing math becomes the point of the class, not how many wrong answers still constitute a pass.
6. As long as time requirements were met and progress was demonstrated, a C was rewarded, a B could be earned for exceptional work or if a B was earned in a student's concurrent math class. Students accepted this, but still complained during the last week of the course. Students considered their work of higher quality than it was.
7. Because of start-up problems, the 60 hours of class time was not matched with 60 hours of computer time. For this first class, 40 hours of computer time was mandated as a minimum. In the future 50 hours will be expected.
8. Unlike traditional summer school, mandatory attendance at a set time did not work with the majority of the students. Changing the course from Algebra for 2 hours on Monday and Wednesday and Geometry from 2 hours on Tuesday and Thursday to simply 4 hours per week helped the students succeed and gave them a chance to stay on track. Athletic activities frequently kept them from class at the originally scheduled time. In short, the two courses met simultaneously in a math lab.

Issues

1. The above approach keeps students on problems on which everyday students also work. The more conventional approach to remedial or intervention classes is to offer simplified instruction. This common cursory review of all standards is not considered fruitful by me, but of course, this is a value judgement. A principal can direct that an AGS or worksheet approach be used instead.
2. Many brands of math software exist, ALEKS offers the fastest path to proficiency, bar none. Also, from a practical standpoint, it also allows license reassignment, which is important in environments where students drop easily. For example, one $40 annual license is normally used four times: Two semesters, one summer school, and one reassignment. Other programs don't offer this reset capability.
3. Having one standard computer login greatly helped. The student ID/password scheme, while it has been improved greatly (Thanks Mr. O), doesn't fit the approaches of many of these students. They login under various names unless simply given a default one.
4. Individual student progress was recorded weekly in a spreadsheet.

Math Lean Curriculum Strategy

Strategic Constraints
1. Implement National Math Panel Report inferences in compliance with California Standards.
2. Press forward with rigor in accordance with the American Diploma Project & Algebra 2 test.
3. Cope with bifurcation of student math achievement by minimizing dropouts.

Implementation
A. Use Singapore Math for K during 2008-9 school year (training must occur during summer).
If this is not achievable, then at least one school must step up to implement.
B. Do not choose any other K-5 texts during the new textbook cycle - unless failure occurs.
C. Use Singapore Math for K-1 during 2009-10, K-2 during 2010-11, . . . .
D. During 2008-9, form a team to refine the Algebra 1/2 curriculum to align with Panel.
E. Start Algebra 1/2 sequence in 2009-10.
F. During 2008-9, form a team to refine Algebra ABCD and Intermediate Algebra to align with the panel and to decrease drop-outs. This may entail technology such as ALEKS and a end-focus on CHSPE prep.
G. Grants may have to be sought to encourage/demand CHSPE participation for IA students.
H. Insure that the CRC obtains a state school code and conducts summer school around the district. Year-round summer school credits must not be issued by EHS, CdM, H, or CM.
I. Summer School needs to be loosely scheduled for dropout prevention. Classes need to be open for over 60 hours, but only require 60 hours for attendance. More than one teacher can be assigned to a class so that the lead teacher's attendance burden is also minimized.

Textbook Pilot Voting

As I understand it, currently the pilot participants will vote with these choices:

a. Textbook A definitely, B not
b. Textbook B definitely, A not
c. A, B is ok
d. B, A is ok
d. No pick - use current materials

It would be advantageous from a professional development standpoint to augment the following choices.

a. Textbook A definitely
b. A, B is ok
c. Textbook A or another text that eases teacher professional development
d. Textbook B definitely
e. B, A is ok
f. Textbook B or another text that eases teacher professional development
g. No pick - current materials are adequate or another text that eases teacher professional development

This option set applies to Pre-Algebra (Grade 7 math) in particular. If the other groups (AR-A1-G-A2) pick the same vendor, then it would ease teacher training and workloads by using one supplier for all. It might help the students be more comfortable. Remember that they have different online suppliers for their other textbooks. They have learning curves.

Technology Implications of New Math Textbooks

After viewing McGraw-Hill's, Prentice-Hall's, McDougal-Littell's, and Holt's short presentations, please accept these thoughts:

1. An LCD projector is mandatory for each math teacher with a new curriculum. A Smartboard may be nice, but only after ALL math teachers have Epson 83c LCD's (about $725 each). Budgets are/will be tight! Room layouts need to be tweaked this year in anticipation.

2. The answer to how all of the wonderful online math software solutions will survive or morph has been partially resolved: they will be rolled-up into major publisher technology components. Prentice-Hall has done a far better job than McGraw-Hill in integrating outside vendors. In particular, the lessons of NutShell Math, the interactive animations of Gizmos, and the supplements of MathXL to its Algebra Readiness program stand out. Also, the integration of MindQuiz into its Algebra Readiness allows teachers to write grants for "clickers" to enhance instruction with no extra software purchase needed. McGraw-Hill/Glencoe's animations are rudimentary. It may have been wise of McGraw-Hill to acquire some of Heymath's technology to be compete with Gizmos.

McDougal-Littell took an independent approach. It wrote lesson tutors, dynamic graphing software, and online animations on its own. The results are quite impressive. Prentice-Hall may have more to offer, but McDougal-Littell's is integrated best for the easiest teacher usage of a large amount of tech with complete teacher support by the integration of graphic organizers, etc. Holt provides a DVD with online duplication. It would be easiest for teachers and students to start with Holt, but over seven years ....

3. Of future importance is the integration of ExamView into all of the textbooks. Besides ExamView becoming the district benchmark test source, it can be used for formative assessment in Jeopardy style games as some point for some teachers. See MindQuiz. It should be noted that ExamView just purchased Interwrite, which makes clickers. In short, teachers writing grants for clickers should be encouraged to buy eInstruction/Interwrite brands, such as Cricket or eInstruction's. There will be a future synergy. Of additional note is that the "front-end" to ExamView is slightly different in each program. McDougal-Littell has the easiest selection of problems, followed by Prentice-Hall. Both McGraw-Hill and Holt's test generation would take a bit more work than the first two. Finally, McDougal-Littell has added many additional problems (classics) into its ExamView library.

4. Both ExamView and Data Director offer test bank libraries. How they compare or are used should be a priority of the math committee. Holt claims that only its test results from ExamView flow into Data Director (which would be very advanced for our district), because Holt owns Data Director. This sounds like a great feature, but it raises a bad question: Isn't Data Director meant to be open? If we purchased a system that is trying to lock out competitors data, it's worth is diminished. This is a serious breach of contract. Holt may be doing a Microsoft. API's to Data Director should be available to everyone (They may not want to offer a connection, but that's another issue.). The managers of Data Director should be spoken with in a direct, straight talk manner. This is not a trivial issue. Interoperability is vital to all.

5. Academic vocabulary is weak in all systems; yet Prentice-Hall is trying the best. It's Algebra Readiness is particularly strong in this area, where real academic words like "isolate" are defined (not just "get x by itself to solve"). By skipping the teaching of words like "consequently" and only focusing on Math jargon, teachers make a major error. Teaching academic vocabulary isn't asking students to write about how they feel about math, it is a valuable component in passing CST and CAHSEE Math, which rival vocabulary tests. This is an important area for professional development.

6. The use of multiple choice during learning, which all of us are guilty of to some extent, is poor from a brain research perspective. Momentum Math is extremely guilty on this topic. Error analysis too soon confuses students long term. The MI pilots have the most extreme difference between the two curriculums.

7. It would appear that due to the disposable nature of MI, that we don't have to make a 7 year committment to it. In my experience, the iPass software product should be sought by teachers who want to use it for MI and can raise the funds for it. It should be considered.

8. Of subtle importance is that the use of math technology will allow the district to pursue more of a "Singapore Math" approach in the next adoption, if the district is willing. The real difference is that "Singapore Math" pushes mastery, then promotion, and tries to keep students in a math register. It doesn't spiral like the US curriculum. Technology should allow highly efficient intervention. We can start planning the future now. The math curriculum of the primary/elementary grades should interest us.

Classroom Computing Hardware & Software

2:1 Classroom Computing with leveraged, network computers demands easy-to-maintain, easy-to-manage systems. Furthermore, since many software programs run only under Windows; systems that run Windows should be sought. Note that this may make the systems harder to maintain and more costly. However, if only Internet access is desired with the addition of a Microsoft Office (tm) type program (eg OpenOffice), then Linux operating systems, such as Ubuntu, should be used. Nonetheless, if Windows is selected, then free StarOffice (tm) or OpenOffice (tm) could and should be installed as a cost savings.

Leveraged network computers include thin clients and multi-user systems. If network congestion is a major issue, then classroom multi-user systems may be the wisest choice: X300 from NComputing leads the market. Hardware for computer labs is another issue.

It is best to have 7 workstations per PC, not 4 which would require more PC's, more money, with more chances for failure. Yes, each PC failure would be less disruptive, but there would be more disruptions overall and the reliability of the classroom would be less. For example, with 7 workstations per PC, a classroom with 21 workstations would require 3 Ethernet ports plus 1 for a network printer and maybe one more for a laptop connected to a SmartBoard. No switches would be needed, which are actually the main cause of network failure (students kick them!).

Future teacher computers should be capable of handling two x300 cards. It may be appropriate to place one x300 and appropriate memory in the teacher computer initially. Let teachers adjust their rooms and add workstations when they are comfortable with them and their locations. It is surmised that seven is the maximum number that supports standard classroom supplemental uses, adding additional workstations means that the class has a computerized instructional focus. In short, the x300 supports pedagogical evolution of each teacher at low cost with high ease.

Getting to this doesn't require tossing older computers. Some classrooms will have seven computers, some seven workstations. Moving computers should be expected.

Finally, the x300 forces issues with network speed to move from the classroom to either network hardware (e.g. "da pipes") or network software (i.e. pipe clogging). IT would have a network focus, not a computer failure focus.

Classroom Computing Approach

Each classroom is different both in layout and wiring senses and also in teacher comfort and purpose when it comes to using computers. One size does not fit all. Policy should allow teachers to incorporate computing as they become not only more comfortable with computer-based instruction but also more understanding of the appropriate trade-offs between facilitated online learning and direct instruction. These are different roles. Some teachers are better at one that the other. Also, students vary in their aptitude and maturity in using computers. As a result, it is best for a district or school to provide computers as requested into a classroom, not install the same number in each or blindly pursue some policy like 1:1 or 5:1.

2:1 Classroom Computing with leveraged, network computers provides a framework for school support of classrooms that flexibly and rapidly adapts to teacher and student needs. This design should be modeled for teachers. It permits both small group instruction and computerized instruction: one day half of a class works on the computers individually and the other half work directly with the teacher. The next day the students switch. There are several ways to model this.