I'm sometimes puzzled during school visits about what I observe in classrooms. I've talked with the school leaders about priorities and what we might hope to see, but during the observations a different type of teaching altogether emerges.
On other occasions, I know that a school has been engaged in a significant initiative and great changes to teaching and learning have occurred. But just prior to the observations a new initiative has begun, and the previously observed practices seem to be occurring far less frequently or even drop off altogether.
Sometimes a new political agenda emerges, despite the best arguments of educators at the highest levels. Currently imposed targets with the threats of consequences for those who don't meet them is an example of a change that might disrupt the clarity you have.
So my big questions are: how do we ensure clarity and coherence in the eyes of the leaders? and most importantly, how do we ensure that this is shared clarity and coherence between leaders and teachers? Do your readings shed any light on these questions?
Our next round is at Granville East and we hope to deepen our understanding about how to teach and lead so that our students can think like mathematicians.
Our blog is started by Nicki from GEPS. She writes:
According to Di Siemon, Number is routinely identified by teachers as the most difficult aspect of school mathematics to teach and learn....and differences in performance are almost entirely due to difficulties with larger whole numbers and related concepts such as multiplicative thinking. Do you agree? What makes you say that?