I found that most students scored within the grade level or above areas of the test, but some did not score in that range.
As you might suspect, I'm okay with the scores of those that landed in the grade level or above categories, but I'm thinking more deeply about those students who score in the range below grade level, What can we do?
First, many students who scored below grade level came to the grade level a number of grades-levels below in knowledge, concept, and skill as determined by standardized test scores and ranking. Many of these students get substantial support, and the teachers all coordinate their efforts to provide a good program to students.
As I look at the scores, however, I'm wondering if we should change the way we do this programming.
I have always thought it would be good to provide these students with a five-day-a-week number sense program in addition to the core program. The number sense program would be run by a skilled math educator and include additional support. The core program would focus on concepts and Boaler's "floor-to-ceiling" differentiated project work approach.
While we have an after school program and RTI, I don't think these programs provide enough consistent number sense support for children who truly have a weak number sense foundation. I think our supports could be better used by providing this additional consistent program. Ingredients to good learning including the following:
- consistency
- developmental approach with one skill building on the other
- relationship with the teacher
- time-on-task
- meaningful, engaging multi-modal learning experiences
- low teacher-student ratios
- use of helpful math tools
- student advocacy and learning-to-learn behaviors and advocacy
I'm going to explore this idea more in the days ahead.
