When I started chronicling my efforts to Build A Thinking Classroom in Mathematics two and a half years ago, I wanted to help fill in some of the blanks that others seemed to be searching for answers to. One of those big ones was...
Where are the test scores? Great news! I teach in a very, very large U.S. school district that, in addition to yearly state testing, mandates its own quarterly standardized testing, too. In my first year, prior to getting "the big" state testing scores, I was able to share test scores in December and in March, too. Those quarterly district results had me cautiously hopeful that the big ones - the annual state testing scores - might be awesome, even in the very first year. Spoiler alert: they were. As I outline in that post as well, the pursuit of better test scores was the biggest reason I Built A Thinking Classroom in Mathematics in the first place. Following the state test score bloodbath that ended one of the best school years of my career and sent me into crisis, I was seeking answers anywhere I could find them. I hope that my sharing of the abysmal test scores of my final non-Thinking Classroom makes clear that I'm not sharing these results to brag. My goal in this entire series of posts on Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics has been to provide certain information that I wish I'd had when I started and that I see a desire for in the broader community of other teachers building such classrooms, like:
Evidence can provide both justification and permission to implement something new. For anyone out there needing either justification or permission to start Building A Thinking Classroom in Mathematics, I wanted to provide the evidence that it at least worked wonders for me. So here come "the big" state test scores from year #2. The data I have to share aren't as complete as they were in year 1. I changed schools after the year, so I just got to see the scores themselves - not the growth percentiles and all the bells and whistles I got in year 1. Let's dig in. First, the raw scores. I taught 6th grade last year, and I made a spreadsheet showing the students' scores in 6th grade compared to their score in 5th grade, as well as the growth or decline they made. The spreadsheet also shows their "achievement level" in each year. In Georgia those levels are:
These are sorted in order from most growth to least growth to most decline. 
Looking at the raw scores,
Looking at the number of students in each achievement level, it breaks down like this: 
Some reflections.
First, a substantial gain in the highest category is always something to celebrate. State-wide, the number of student scoring in that category hovers around 8%, I've been told, and my students doubled that, obviously not having come to me already there. Students who score in this category get all the best opportunities in the years ahead, so adding six kids to those ranks is really something to celebrate. Next, there was a substantial decrease in the "developing" (about a year behind) category. Again, a major celebration. Those kids are "on track" now, again with all the future benefits that come with that. Third, seven students declined, most of them quite a bit. I could give you some reasons that I think they did, but I think it best not to. I'll own it and reflect on it. In year #1, nobody regressed. That said, prior to Building A Thinking Classroom, a lot of students regressed. So disappointed as I am, that's still far, far, far better than what I got in my final mimicking classroom. Considering, also, that we are in a time of national test score decline, having only a few students who did so seems like a win as well. Looking at the scores like an administrator, the Thinking Classroom experience raised the average student's score by 17 points an increased the percentage of students scoring proficient or better by 16%. Looking at it like a teacher, that's an additional 16% of the students who are going to get the best classes and opportunities moving forward. Additionally, the students who still scored below proficient showed a lot of growth, and those kids tend to be very difficult to move the needle for. Look at the results just for the students who came in below grade level: 
Liljedahl insists that it is very difficult to get students to think once they become accustomed to "studenting"/mimicking, but that if you can, the results can be staggering. For these students who came in below grade level, it was indeed difficult to make that transition for them, but it sure paid off.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it!
Want to make sure you never miss a new post? Subscribe below for email notifications of new content.
Want to read more right now? You're in luck - this is my 107th post! You can browse past posts by category:
Want to contribute to the conversation? Or do you have an idea for a future post? Leave a comment below!
0 Comments
|
About MeI'm an award-winning teacher in Atlanta with experience teaching at every level from elementary school to college. Categories
All
|
