Let’s Talk About Our New School Year: Part 2
In the first part of this series, I initiated a discussion regarding conceptual math instruction and the use of metacognitive techniques for the development of thinking skills. As I approached this discussion, please know that I have a strong bias on this subject. You see, I have been a strong supporter of conceptual based math instruction since the early 2000’s when, as a school district, Wamego initiated a K-12 math program using this instructional technique (note this was long before the Kansas College and Career Readiness (KCCR) standards were adopted). I have seen first hand the success students can have on state and the ACT assessments. More importantly, I have seen students develop metacognitive skills that they were not developing when the emphasis was solely on memorization of math facts and algorithms. Please don’t get me wrong, these things are important when it comes to math instruction but our students lose out with their thinking and reasoning skills when that is our sole emphasis.
I want to talk a little about math education in our country (let me warn you before we begin, there are several ironies that take place in the course of this review). This is important for parents to know and think about. So much of our current public dialogue focuses on matters that seemingly have little to do with math instruction and more about politics and special interests. Most of the information I share can be easily found on-line if people really want to know about best practices in math instruction. For those of you who are really interested but want to go light on educational jargon, I would encourage you to read a New York Times article titled, “Why Do Americans Stink At Math” by Elizabeth Green.
Since the early 1960’s, there has been a consistent non-partisan call from government and our business community to improve the math education practices of our schools. These calls reach a crescendo every twenty years or so in response to some occurrence outside our country which psychologically impacts our country (see our reaction to Sputnik or the “Nation At Risk” report). A second contributor to this call for improvement has been U.S. student results on international tests. Our students have consistently trailed other developed countries on math results though we have seen gains in the past two TIMMS assessments.
At least two times in the past fifty years the U.S. has attempted to change the fundamental instructional practices in our schools only to stop mid stream. Why? There tends to be four primary reasons. First, the change, and even the reasons to change, are not understood by a majority of our parents. Now, even though a majority of adults would not characterize themselves as being good at math, it is hard for them to support something they did not experience in school. Second, some of our teachers do not understand this instructional approach and, more importantly, districts have not invested time or money into training programs to help them. Third, some special interest groups pounce on parental, and to some degree teacher, dissatisfaction or the interest group just fundamentally disagrees and a slow challenge to the change effort begins. They begin to recruit and appeal to adults, including parents, who do not understand the change effort. They do this through the cultivation of a general distrust in government or public schools. Last, what began as a non-partisan change initiative becomes partisan in the political arena. For most schools in America, this is where their change effort ends.
A look at several of the top performing countries when it comes to international math assessments shows a similarity in these countries’ instructional methods for math. They introduce fewer concepts in the course of a year than we do here in the U.S., choosing more in-depth practice of the concepts they do introduce. They use a conceptual approach, using word problems for students to try to find meaning from prior knowledge before breaking down the new concept. In doing this teachers focus on a child’s metacognitive approach to their work. In other words, they want students to spend time thinking about how they solve the problem and then explaining their thinking. This is a critical skill for our students to learn if we want to them to truly understand math. Teachers also spend a lot of time working with other teachers planning lessons that reinforce this instructional approach.
What most people do not know is that this conceptual approach, which has worked so well for other countries, was actually developed by the American educational system. The lesson planning process was also initially developed in the U.S. So, just like many practices, the conceptual idea is developed in the U.S. then refined and actually implemented in a foreign country. In the end, other countries found a way or the will to see their change efforts through while the U.S. continues to get caught up in the politics of change.
So here we are again. The KCCR standards call for a fundamental change in how students are taught math. USD 417 began this change four years ago and we will continue our work for years to come unless the state changes the KCCR standards. As we all can see before us, the politics of change has begun. The question is whether we have the will to see this change through or will it be stymied for at least the third time in the past fifty years? If we become stymied and we are told once again to continue to do the same thing we have been doing in the past but do it better or harder or whatever, most likely we will see the same results. At least history tells us to expect such an outcome.