T3 - Tasks, Tools and Talk

T3 – Tasks, Tools and Talk

            The Common Core State Mathematics Standards (CCSS-M, 2010) challenge traditional

beliefs regarding what it means to learn and teach mathematics.  The Seneca Valley Middle School has embarked on a professional development campaign, begun in the Seneca Valley Elementary Schools four years ago, to help teachers meet the Mathematical Practice standards defined by the CCSS-M (CCSS-M, 2010).   Although the standards dictate neither curriculum nor pedagogy, the emphasis on student reasoning and communication challenges the traditional method of delivery, wherein teachers model procedures and students use the procedures in repetitive fashion (Lampert,1990; Ball, Goffney, & Bass, 2005).  Supporting students in a way that encourages a belief in their own efficacy and a positive disposition toward mathematics, demands teacher reflection regarding the vision of good instruction and the related classroom culture that supports it (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005).

            Seneca Valley teachers are taking a close look at the classroom culture created during math instruction. With the help of professional development experts associated with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and faculty from the University of Pittsburgh, teachers work toward creating a discussion- rich community.  When one considers classroom culture, teaching mathematics in a way that is consistent with the Common Core State Standards includes more than teaching mathematical content. The first three practices: make sense of problems and persevere in solving them; reason abstractly and quantitatively; and construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others, focus on making sense of problems and solutions through the process of logical explanation as well as through probing the understanding of others as students construct arguments, identify correspondences among approaches, and explore the truth of conjectures.

            It is through talk that mathematical ideas are aired, revised, connected to prior knowledge and to one another, examined, and challenged. Exchanges between teachers and students or students and students, go beyond describing a summary of steps in solving a problem; problem solving strategies are linked to mathematical argument. At Seneca Valley Middle School, roles of teachers includes establishing  norms wherein differences are expected and respected; where disagreements are resolved by reasoned arguments; and where mathematical reasoning is a practice to be learned, not an innate ability (Ball, Goffney, & Bass, 2005). 

            Discursive participation and the related teacher practices that influence student learning are largely affected by the mathematical task selected by the teacher.  It is the mathematical task, a set of problems or a single complex problem, itself that focuses attention on a particular mathematical idea and defines the intellectual challenge on which students will attend during a mathematics class (Stein, Grover, & Henningsen, 1996).  The kind of task selected can promote or discourage students to explore deeply the intended mathematical goal and is closely related to norms in which students will engage and the opportunity for deep conceptual understanding (Doyle,1988; Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2000). 

            Seneca Valley teachers are considering the task’s cognitive demand,that is the level and type of thinking that a task has the potential to engage in a student. In general, low-level cognitive demand tasks are algorithmic in nature.  They involve using or producing previously learned facts or procedures.  There is little ambiguity about the direction or steps needed for solution and they are generally not connected to concepts underlying the procedure.  The focus is primarily on obtaining a correct answer with little need for explanation.  Conversely, tasks that require students to explore and understand mathematical concepts, processes, or relationships, requiring that students develop meaning through the use of multiple representations and analysis, while accessing prior relevant knowledge fall into the category of high-level cognitive demand. These tasks often require students to use non-algorithmic thinking while persevering to develop solution strategies.  Further, equity is served as students profit from the alternate representations of classmates’ vision of the mathematical ideas. The task itself provides the reason that talk is needed at all. Properly chosen, it offers the opportunity for everyone to make a contribution to both individual and group success.

For additional information please contact Andrea Peck at Seneca Valley MS

            

Don Eichhorn Schools: School to Watch Summit a Success

Don Eichhorn Schools: School to Watch Summit a Success

By

PA STW Leadership Team

The theoretical framework of Middle-Grades Reform as guided by the principles of the School to Watch initiative include uniting key stakeholders to speak with a common voice to leverage research, policy, leadership, and replicable model practices to drive middle grades reform (National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, 2012). June 23-25 the leadership team for Pennsylvania Schools to Watch organized the Don Eichhorn Schools: Schools to Watch Summit at Duquesne University promoting these principles for leadership teams of PA designated schools. Twenty-eight middle level leaders participated in this worthwhile event representing designated middle schools throughout the Commonwealth.

The PA STW leadership team, headed by Bruce Vosburgh, designed the summit around critical topics related to young adolescent literacy development. In order to set the scene and build background information for discussion of this topic, participants first read and discussed the International Reading Association/Association of Middle Level Education joint position paper: Supporting Young Adolescents’ Literacy Learning (2001) as it relates to the critical issues involving adolescent reading. They also reviewed some of the critical NAEP (National Association of Educational Progress) data that reinforces the need for addressing young adolescents’ literacy needs. Some of the important points discussed included: the decrease in demand for unskilled labor which will require better reading skills to secure productive employment; the number of children in eighth grade who lack literacy skills especially among children in poverty; and the disparity in reading scores among minority students and English language learners with others.

Middle level educators then participated in a Structured Interview problem-solving process whereby they sought answers to four compelling problems related to literacy learning including lack of writing skills, dispositions of content teachers about integrating reading into their teaching practices, using formative and summative data to improve reading instruction, and integrating technology more efficiently and effectively to promote reading.  Finally, educators participated in the Six Thinking Hats Strategy designed by Edward de Bono. This strategy challenges people to think differently than perhaps is the norm for them. Using the information outlined in Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006) Reading Next: A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy <http://www.all4ed.org/files/ReadingNext.pdf> published by the Alliance for Excellent Education, educators were assigned a perspective (hat) from which they were required to discuss the report including: white hat thinking, this person focused on data, facts, and information known or needed; red hat thinking, this person focused on feelings, gut instinct and intuition; yellow hat thinking focusing on values and benefits of why something may work; black hat thinking focusing on difficulties and potential problems or why something may not work; green hat thinking focusing on creativity, possibilities, alternatives, solutions and new ideas; and finally, blue hat thinking focusing on the next steps and action plans.  This strategy encouraged participants to “think outside the box” as well as required them to think in ways that may not be comfortable. The STW leadership team wanted to provide these strategies as an opportunity for those in attendance to review and discuss quality research and replicate effective practices that could be used as problem solving methods thus promoting the principles of the STW initiative. They also wanted participants to be involved fully in these critical discussions.

Participants, however, not only engaged in these activities, they also shared best practices occurring in their school districts. Sharing of these best practices contributes to building a community of learners thus promoting a continuous improvement model in an easy and efficient manner. Best practices were posted on the STW  “members only” site so even those unable to attend the Summit would be able to use the valuable information and model practices that were shared. Educators could be seen collaborating with each other after these sessions asking significant questions and sharing contact information via technology. Paul Meck, member of the leadership team, commented that “education requires so much more in terms of crisis management that having opportunities to discuss significant research and its implications for practice are often not a priority. This was a very enjoyable summit and there was so such great discussion and sharing of great tools that can be replicated.”

            The third day of the Summit served as the culminating activity which promoted the literacy hot topic of previous days. Scholastic hosted a very worthwhile Reading Summit for Educational Leaders also at Duquesne University. Participants had the opportunity to attend various breakout sessions. One of the highlights of the Scholastic Reading Summit included listening to an exceptional keynote address by author, Pam Allyn, whose book Be Core Ready, (Pearson, 2013) provides an exemplary resource for administrators and teachers for implementing the Common Core State Standards. Her straightforward and humorous presentation was well received by the audience.

The School to Watch Summit would not have been possible without the significant contributions of Dr. Robert Furman who is a member of the STW leadership team and also Program Director of the School of Administration and Supervision/Foundations at Duquesne University. Dr. Furman and Duquesne University made sure every detail from food to accommodations were perfect for the Summit guests. Erik Lehman, President of Pennsylvania Association for Middle Level Education, offered praise for the Summit by stating: “These kinds of professional activities provide a very positive experience for participants and it is a great opportunity to find out what other educators are doing in their middle schools.”

Pennsylvania School to Watch Leadership Team:

Mr. Bruce Vosburgh, Director

Kathleen H. Benson, Ph.D.

Robert Furman, Ed.D.

Mr. Paul Meck

Mr. Len Ferrence

Mr. Herb Steffy, Ed.D.

Revisiting Don Eichhorn's The Middle School

 Revisiting Don Eichhorn's The Middle School  

by

Robert Ruder

Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio

A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson
Joltin' Joe has left and gone away
 

In 1966, the National Association of Secondary Schools published The Middle School, by Donald H. Eichhorn. Within the 105 pages of the book, Eichhorn explained the position the emerging middle school concept would assume within the continuum of contemporary education. Like slugger DiMaggio, Eichhorn was one of the heavy hitters for the middle school movement. So influential were his writings that a second printing took place in 1968 and a special third printing was sponsored by the National Association of Secondary Principals and the National Middle School Association in 1987.

The foreword of the 1987 edition of The Middle School was written by John H. Lounsbury, who at the time was the editor of the Middle School Journal. Lounsbury felt Eichhorn's contributions to middle level education as espoused in The Middle School were significant as indicated in the following, “Combining basic information about early adolescents with a sound philosophical rationale and specific programmatic plans, this book provided the first full articulation of the middle school proposal. It also gave us the words transescence and transescent, which Eichhorn coined to give a specific label to this in-between stage of life and individuals in it.” 

Conrad F. Toepfer, the chairperson of the NASSP's Council on Middle Level Education wrote the introduction for the 1987 edition of The Middle School. Toepfer saw Eichhhorn's work as being, “30 years ahead of it's time.” He further shared his belief that “this book's availability will help us achieve the goals that Donald Eichhorn's significant work established more than two decades ago.”

In addition to Toeper's and Lounsbury's comments, Don Eichhorn also contributed to the third printing of The Middle School  in a three page essay entitled The Middle School:Reflection and Challenge.  Included in Eichhorn's historical overview is the genesis of the middle level concept and his believe that “the middle school concept was initiated in this (1960s) climate of fresh ideas, creative changes, and renewed interest in child -based learning. One of the few innovations that has survived the test of time is the distinctive middle level school.”

Dr. Eichhorn further shares the four reasons that he believed the middle school movement began. They are:

l  A recognition and reaffirmation of the belief that youngsters aged 10-14 are in a unique stage of development in which they share similar physical, mental, social and emotional characteristics.

l  New medical evidence that suggests that youngsters attain puberty at an earlier age than before.

l  Forces such as the new technology, racial integration, and the knowledge explosion that are affecting society.

l  The junior high school organization was perceived as and in many instances had become an institution patterned after the senior high school.  

In addition, Eichhorn notes two concepts that he felt were fundamental to planning, developing and operating a middle school. The first being a direct model relationship between the learners' characteristics and the school program. The second was transescence which he defined as “the stage of development which begins prior to the onset of puberty and and extends through the early stages of adolescence.”

As Eichhorn acknowledged the accomplishments realized in middle level education since the first printing of The Middle School in 1966 until 1987, he ponders the challenges that he felt remain to be addressed. He is adamant about the need for educators to consider the middle level a unique stage of human development and the need for them to focus their attention on the basic idea that middle level students differ significantly from those at the elementary and high school levels. He is concerned about the shortage of educators willing to work with middle level students as well as the need to continuously develop curriculum and instructional models that that enhance student acquisition of basic skills, processes and content knowledge.

Also clearly stated by Eichhorn is the need for “the development of support programs for teachers and administrators from state departments of education, higher education institutions and professional associations” to further the concept of middle level education. Lastly, Dr. Eichhorn points to the need for undergraduate programs that are designed for training middle school teachers along with the need to realize middle level state certification for educators. 

The visionary Dr. Eichhorn concludes his commentary with the following thought: “Children born in the 1980s will be practitioners of middle level education in the twenty-first century. It will be an exciting era and I hope that the re-publishing of The Middle School may make some contribution to its success.” 

Twenty-three years after the third printing of The Middle School children born in the 1980s are the educational leaders of the nation's schools serving as building principals, supervisors of curriculum and instruction and superintendents.  Despite the passing of time, the many thoughts of Don Eichhorn related to middle level education still ring true. But perhaps the thoughts of Eichhorn, Toeper and Lounsbury have gone the way of Jotlin' Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle and Jackie Robinson. Practitioners might ask, does the philosophy embraced by Eichhorn have a place in contemporary middle level education?

The answer to this question is school or school district specific. Certainly there are some  components of Eichhorn's middle level theory that are integrated seamlessly into today's middle school. While modified to serve the needs of a school's students some stands of Dr. Eichhorn's thinking are applicable in the twenty-first century.

As progressive middle schools continue to reinvent who they are and determine if what they are doing is best for students, The Middle School may be used as the basis to spawn creative thinking and staff development activities. Despite the forty-four year lapse since Eichhorn espoused his beliefs related to middle level education, remnants of his thinking may be as relevant today as they were in 1966.  

Author's Note:

In honor of Dr. Eichhorn, the Don Eichhorn Award was presented to Pennsylvania middle schools that successfully implemented middle level practices and embraced middle level philosophy from 1992 to 2006. In 2008 the Pennsylvania Don Eichhorn Schools: Schools to Watch program was created. An outgrowth of the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, the Schools to Watch initiative was established in 1997. The Schools to Watch program identified middle level schools that demonstrated outstanding performance in  academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, social equity and organizational structures and processes.

The Don Eichhorn Schools: Schools to Watch program is a collaborative venture of the Pennsylvania Association for Middle Level Education, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, Duquesne University, Shippensburg University, Edinboro University and Horace Mann Corporation.

Additional information regarding the Don Eichhorn Schools: Schools to Watch program is available at <www.pamle.org>.        

   

       

Seneca Valley STEM Fems Program

Seneca Valley Middle School STEM Fems

Seneca Valley Middle School has implemented a STEM program for 7^th and 8^th grade female students appropriately named SVMS STEM Fems. Julie Smith, an eighth grade science teacher, along with Principal Andrea Peck and Vice-Principal Marie Palano, have teamed together with the local community to enhance Science and Math, Technology, Engineering and Medicine for Seneca Valley girls. STEM Fems, launched in December with approximately 70 girls, began the year taking part in a CSI-investigation activity in which the girls became forensic scientists for the afternoon when they investigated the mystery of who mixed up Mrs. Claus’ cookie ingredients.

During the second event in February, girls learned about the chemistry of cosmetics through the help of women scientists from Sonneborn, INC, Lenape Technical School, and the Female Alliance for STEM Excellence, FASE. The girls used chemistry to make their own lip gloss, scented stones, and face scrub to take home with them. The STEM Fems events continued through the school year with hands-on, minds-on activities and guest speakers who talked with the girls about how these STEM activities relate to their lives and careers.

The next after school event was in March when undergraduate and graduate women in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University introduced computer science to the middle school girls and talked about when about why & how they began studying computer science, their current experiences, what computer science means to them now, and their future hopes and expectations. Google Pittsburgh software engineer and Seneca Valley graduate Danielle Millett also shared her life & career experiences with the STEM Fems during this technology event.

A recognition ceremony for the girls and their parents will be held in mid-April that will include a STEM-related activity, guest speakers from the senior high school Women in Engineering class, and student recognition for their potential, interest, and talent in STEM. 

 A workshop will also be offered at the Department of Defense’s STARBASE – Atlantis Pittsburgh in late June to further expose girls to the world of STEM through experimental learning, simulations, experiments in aviation, interaction with military personnel and tours of Naval activities.  

In order to increase collaboration between the school, the girls & their parents, and the community members a STEM website has been designed to share unique STEM opportunities both within the STEM Fems and around the community.  The events, implementation, and progress of the program have been widely publicized in local media.  Students have also received official STEM Fems shirts for their participation and are encouraged to wear them to all events.

The goal of STEM Fems is for middle school girls to experience increased exposure to STEM related careers and opportunities. Our mission is for them to develop inquiry and collaboration skills to use in all curricular areas. Most importantly, by recognizing their efforts and introducing them to role models within Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine, we hope to move closer to gender equality in education and in STEM occupations.

            For additional information, please contact Andrea Peck, Principal Seneca Valley Middle School @ peckaw@svsd.net