As the Ministry of Education prepares to implement a new curriculum for the Province of British Columbia, I was asked to be a part of a review curriculum. Below is the query from the Ministry and my response. Of course this is just my opinion,
The Question:
What do we, as a province, need to do to reassure the citizens of BC that foundational knowledge and skills are present in the draft mathematics k-9 curriculum?
The intent of the draft is to provide a balanced approach to learning mathematics, but is presence of the basics clear?
If not, what else needs to be there, or what work needs to be done?
My Response:
To start, reassure the citizens of BC that the “new math” goes beyond just simply teaching algorithms and following a set of steps to solve mathematical problems. We need to make clear that the process of math, number sense, testing and confirming estimates and developing multiple strategies to solve problems are key. I feel that we need to expose parental attitudes towards math and then explain how developing a mathematical understanding is paramount to rote memorization and speed. We can no longer accept the old adage “well I was never good at math” like it is a genetic disposition. We wouldn’t accept that line of thinking for literacy would we?
Truth of the matter is, the old curriculum, nor the new curriculum ever lacked basic math skills. What has lacked over the years is a focus on mathematics teaching and thus a largely untrained and uneducated teaching body. In my 15 years of teaching I have seen many new models of language and literacy training introduced. Couple this with a multitude of programmes and the amount of learning is endless. From whole language, to Jolly Phonics and Daily 5 there is no shortage of approaches to developing literacy skills in our students. In that same time I have experienced one math reform from Quest 2000 to Math Makes Sense. So what has resulted? In elementary teacher training programs across the province, our future educators, are only required to take one course in mathematics instruction. Now just imagine you are an aspiring teacher that struggled mightily in math as a student, were given little experience in teaching mathematics and finally, when you enter into the teaching profession you are inundated with a multitude of language arts materials and a mandate to ensure all your students learn how to read. What happens to your math instruction? Well I can tell you. Teachers look to textbooks to inform them what to teach. Textbooks like “Math Makes Sense” that focus on “the new Math” are confusing to untrained teachers who never really got math anyway and this raises their anxiety. How can you teach something you are not familiar nor comfortable with effectively? So we move on to something familiar, something that resembles the way you were taught math….a program like “Jump Math” that breaks algorithms into step by step parts and then gets students to repeat the process for 40-50 questions. Familiar? Yes. Sequential? Definitely. Easy to explain? You betcha. Is it moving learning forward and developing in students “the basic” skills our recent critics are crying for? Not a chance!
So here lies the great divide. PISA results telling us our students aren’t good enough in math. Parents demanding a back to basics model, and a continuing focus on literacy instruction. A new curriculum will not change our math forecasts unless we raise the capacity of teachers wanting to teach math and willing to learn math. All we have now are small group of interested teachers decided to make math their focus to improve student learning. They delve into the latest research around part-whole thinking, mental math strategies, and problem solving processes. The results have been students with a stronger conceptual understanding of numbers and mathematic principles at the possible expense of speed and efficiency. The largest and unfortunately most serious consequence of this “new math” learning is a generation of parents, who likely hated mathematics themselves, having little ability to assist their child with math homework, or those parents whom math made sense, a gutted and frustrated feeling that the process their child is using is maybe a little slower, a little more tedious, than their method. The lingering question then remains, to whom is the math targeted, and who is to own the learning?
Looking at this new curriculum, the notion of “the basics” is still vague to me. In grade 3 one of “the basics” listed is fractions, but there is little articulation as to what a “basic” understanding of fractions is for a grade 3 student. In addition, when talking about “the basics” the province must make clear developmentally appropriate learning looks like in a prescribed curriculum while honouring the fact that learning can take time and is not directly correlated to on age or grade. For this reason alone, having the big ideas consistent across K- grade 2 is a positive step in my opinion. On the web, it would be useful to have links as to what specific content pieces could look like at each age. They could also suggest activities for parents to help develop some of these basic skills, common misconceptions at various ages and developmental levels. Lastly and most importantly, the Ministry of Education must dedicate time and money to the training of teachers on the core competencies and what this means in mathematics education. Reasoning and proof is far more than just the correct answer. Communication is far more than just being able to recite multiplication tables, repeat a formula or list the steps used to solve a problem. We must train teachers how to meld “the basics” with true mathematics learning in order to satisfy the public’s desire to raise math scores while at the same time develop mathematically literate students.
The Question:
What do we, as a province, need to do to reassure the citizens of BC that foundational knowledge and skills are present in the draft mathematics k-9 curriculum?
The intent of the draft is to provide a balanced approach to learning mathematics, but is presence of the basics clear?
If not, what else needs to be there, or what work needs to be done?
My Response:
To start, reassure the citizens of BC that the “new math” goes beyond just simply teaching algorithms and following a set of steps to solve mathematical problems. We need to make clear that the process of math, number sense, testing and confirming estimates and developing multiple strategies to solve problems are key. I feel that we need to expose parental attitudes towards math and then explain how developing a mathematical understanding is paramount to rote memorization and speed. We can no longer accept the old adage “well I was never good at math” like it is a genetic disposition. We wouldn’t accept that line of thinking for literacy would we?
Truth of the matter is, the old curriculum, nor the new curriculum ever lacked basic math skills. What has lacked over the years is a focus on mathematics teaching and thus a largely untrained and uneducated teaching body. In my 15 years of teaching I have seen many new models of language and literacy training introduced. Couple this with a multitude of programmes and the amount of learning is endless. From whole language, to Jolly Phonics and Daily 5 there is no shortage of approaches to developing literacy skills in our students. In that same time I have experienced one math reform from Quest 2000 to Math Makes Sense. So what has resulted? In elementary teacher training programs across the province, our future educators, are only required to take one course in mathematics instruction. Now just imagine you are an aspiring teacher that struggled mightily in math as a student, were given little experience in teaching mathematics and finally, when you enter into the teaching profession you are inundated with a multitude of language arts materials and a mandate to ensure all your students learn how to read. What happens to your math instruction? Well I can tell you. Teachers look to textbooks to inform them what to teach. Textbooks like “Math Makes Sense” that focus on “the new Math” are confusing to untrained teachers who never really got math anyway and this raises their anxiety. How can you teach something you are not familiar nor comfortable with effectively? So we move on to something familiar, something that resembles the way you were taught math….a program like “Jump Math” that breaks algorithms into step by step parts and then gets students to repeat the process for 40-50 questions. Familiar? Yes. Sequential? Definitely. Easy to explain? You betcha. Is it moving learning forward and developing in students “the basic” skills our recent critics are crying for? Not a chance!
So here lies the great divide. PISA results telling us our students aren’t good enough in math. Parents demanding a back to basics model, and a continuing focus on literacy instruction. A new curriculum will not change our math forecasts unless we raise the capacity of teachers wanting to teach math and willing to learn math. All we have now are small group of interested teachers decided to make math their focus to improve student learning. They delve into the latest research around part-whole thinking, mental math strategies, and problem solving processes. The results have been students with a stronger conceptual understanding of numbers and mathematic principles at the possible expense of speed and efficiency. The largest and unfortunately most serious consequence of this “new math” learning is a generation of parents, who likely hated mathematics themselves, having little ability to assist their child with math homework, or those parents whom math made sense, a gutted and frustrated feeling that the process their child is using is maybe a little slower, a little more tedious, than their method. The lingering question then remains, to whom is the math targeted, and who is to own the learning?
Looking at this new curriculum, the notion of “the basics” is still vague to me. In grade 3 one of “the basics” listed is fractions, but there is little articulation as to what a “basic” understanding of fractions is for a grade 3 student. In addition, when talking about “the basics” the province must make clear developmentally appropriate learning looks like in a prescribed curriculum while honouring the fact that learning can take time and is not directly correlated to on age or grade. For this reason alone, having the big ideas consistent across K- grade 2 is a positive step in my opinion. On the web, it would be useful to have links as to what specific content pieces could look like at each age. They could also suggest activities for parents to help develop some of these basic skills, common misconceptions at various ages and developmental levels. Lastly and most importantly, the Ministry of Education must dedicate time and money to the training of teachers on the core competencies and what this means in mathematics education. Reasoning and proof is far more than just the correct answer. Communication is far more than just being able to recite multiplication tables, repeat a formula or list the steps used to solve a problem. We must train teachers how to meld “the basics” with true mathematics learning in order to satisfy the public’s desire to raise math scores while at the same time develop mathematically literate students.