Glenn Estacio
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 11:08 AM
To: Glenn Estacio; Laura Campbell
Subject: Re: Estacio questions about Eureka
Hi Mr. Estacio!
I hope you had a wonderful holiday break! I know that this email reply is way overdue, but I hope I can be helpful with some thoughts, and I am happy to
continue this conversation moving forward. Please see some of my thoughts below in red!
Good evening Mr. Hammer and Ms. Campbell:
Thank you very much for taking the time to give me your insights on the Eureka rollout at Southwest and how to meet the needs of each student.
It sounds like “differentiation” and “traditional” small group instruction are not preferred. Rather, what I heard was that it order to close gaps, we must continue
to expose every student to grade-level math content and not substitute lower material instead.
I have attached some literature that a colleague sent me recently on differentiation that might be helpful as you continue to explore this question. I definitely
agree that all students need to be exposed to grade-level content each day of math class. If we expose students to below grade-level content, I would suggest
using that below grade-level content as a scaffold to help students access the grade-level content. In terms of the whole group v. small group conversation,
there is definitely a time and a place for small group instruction, but small group instruction is not a substitute for whole group instruction. There is good
research to support that whole group instruction is a more effective means of teaching conceptual content, while small group instruction is most effective for
remediating gaps in procedures and skills-based content.
What do you all think of these ideas to address some gaps (most of these I stole from Laura ):
1. Teachers have to improve their minute-to-minute assessment of individual student comprehension during the concept development stage of instruction
as the primary form of progress monitoring. Spot on. Teachers need to purposefully plan for how they can collect data on the key skills/concepts each
lesson and multiple times in each lesson. There are so many ways to do this outside of calling on raised hands for example, which is so common.
2. Teachers can track iReady data for 3-5 and Performance Task results for K-2 to supplement their understanding of student growth and mastery of
concepts. For sure. From my experience, school leaders and coaches need to build time into the school day/PD/workdays to work with teachers
regarding how to interpret data as well as to make actionable steps to address the data. We cannot assume that teachers are looking at data or that they
know what to do with it.
3. Using information from 1 and 2, teachers do some flexible grouping during the practice phase of instruction (with the hopes of addressing gaps due to
poor foundation, misunderstanding during whole group instruction, or differences in learning styles):
1
a.
These groups would have a high group (kids who get it and need enrichment or enhancement), a middle group who practice all of the problems
(mostly independently), a middle group that might benefit from the use of manipulatives, and a lower group that does a few of the problems in a
more deliberate fashion (probably with a lot of assistance from the teacher).
There is a time and a place for tracking groups like this, but I would caution teachers from relying on tracking students. I am a huge fan of
heterogeneous groups for a few reasons. Low and low-middle skilled students need to hear excellent math reasoning from their teachers, their
peers, and themselves. If low students are constantly added to groups with other low students, the only place for these students to hear
excellent and sound math reasoning is from the teacher. Lower skilled students can really benefit from working in groups with higher-skilled
students who can share their strategies. Similarly, higher-skilled students need to explain their thinking as a way to solidify their learning. What
better way for students to do this than to explain their work or teach their work to a lower-skilled peer?
4. I wonder if there would be some benefits to some vertical planning between grade levels. Teachers could talk to one another about the key concepts at
each grade level and the Eureka strategies that are introduced/built upon from one grade level to the next. This would be excellent. If teachers are going
to adequately prepare students for the next grade level, they need to know exactly what students are responsible for mastering in the current grade
level and the next grade level. Similarly, if teachers are going to address lagging skills, they need to know what content to draw upon from the previous
grade. This is not something that I have done with schools yet this year (multi-grade level PLCs), but I would love to chat more about this and figure out
how Southwest can do this on their own!
I would also be interested to know if there are any schools/teachers that are doing anything like the things listed above. I would be interested in visiting such a
school to see what we can steal and bring back to Southwest. At the moment, the best I could do would be to name excellent teachers I have seen. I need to do
a better job in 2020 in terms of identifying schools that I work with and the schools of my colleagues that could be emulated for best practices. Keep asking me
about this so I can give you a better answer!
Finally, if any of these ideas float, I wonder if it would be smart to see if there was one or two teachers at Southwest who could pilot such a model of instruction.
A couple who seem to have a good handle on Eureka to this point and are ready to take it to another level. From my very limited observations of teachers at
Southwest, I could see Ms. Haywood, Ms. Goslen, Ms. Ebony, and Ms. Fox being teachers who would fall in this category.
I am hoping some of these ideas could be part of my Problem of Practice project for grad school and could improve the math instruction for each teacher and
each student at Southwest.
I look forward to hearing ya’ll’s thoughts on these ideas.
Sincerely,
Glenn
To help
protect y our
priv acy ,
Micro so ft
Office
prev ented
auto matic
download of
this pictu re
from the
In ternet.
DALE HAMMER
Professional Development and Implementation Support Specialist
973.229.3724 | 202.223.1854 | GreatMinds.org
Every child is capable of greatness.
2
From: Glenn Estacio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 7:44 PM
To: Dale Hammer <[email protected]>; Laura Campbell <[email protected]>
Subject: Estacio questions about Eureka
Good evening Mr. Hammer and Ms. Campbell:
Thank you very much for taking the time to give me your insights on the Eureka rollout at Southwest and how to meet the needs of each student.
It sounds like “differentiation” and “traditional” small group instruction are not preferred. Rather, what I heard was that it order to close gaps, we must continue
to expose every student to grade-level math content and not substitute lower material instead.
What do you all think of these ideas to address some gaps (most of these I stole from Laura ):
1. Teachers have to improve their minute-to-minute assessment of individual student comprehension during the concept development stage of instruction
as the primary form of progress monitoring.
2. Teachers can track iReady data for 3-5 and Performance Task results for K-2 to supplement their understanding of student growth and mastery of
concepts.
3. Using information from 1 and 2, teachers do some flexible grouping during the practice phase of instruction (with the hopes of addressing gaps due to
poor foundation, misunderstanding during whole group instruction, or differences in learning styles):
a. These groups would have a high group (kids who get it and need enrichment or enhancement), a middle group who practice all of the problems
(mostly independently), a middle group that might benefit from the use of manipulatives, and a lower group that does a few of the problems in a
more deliberate fashion (probably with a lot of assistance from the teacher).
4. I wonder if there would be some benefits to some vertical planning between grade levels. Teachers could talk to one another about the key concepts at
each grade level and the Eureka strategies that are introduced/built upon from one grade level to the next.
I would also be interested to know if there are any schools/teachers that are doing anything like the things listed above. I would be interested in visiting such a
school to see what we can steal and bring back to Southwest.
Finally, if any of these ideas float, I wonder if it would be smart to see if there was one or two teachers at Southwest who could pilot such a model of instruction.
A couple who seem to have a good handle on Eureka to this point and are ready to take it to another level.
I am hoping some of these ideas could be part of my Problem of Practice project for grad school and could improve the math instruction for each teacher and
each student at Southwest.
I look forward to hearing ya’ll’s thoughts on these ideas.
Sincerely,
3
Glenn
Mr. Glenn Estacio, M.A.T.
NC State Principal Preparation Fellow, NCSU Cohort
Principal Resident
Southwest Elementary School | Durham Public Schools
2320 Cook Road, Durham, NC 27713
919-560-3972, x-72246/
[email protected]