Reflections on Fifth Grade Division (That Sounds So Sad)

 I have experienced a few pendulum swings over the years.  When I first started teaching in Hawaii, we had homogenous classes for language arts and math. I had the remedial class and used a skills-based curriculum in which they could progress at their own pace. For the past 7 years, I have been a math and science specialist in classes that include several English Language Learners in heterogenous classrooms, with a wide range of abilities from being at grade level to several years behind grade level. Because our school keeps all the gifted and talented and many high achievers in one class, we rarely have students who are above grade level.

   When I first entered teaching, we taught math pretty much how we were taught. I call it, "just do it" math. You don't have to understand it, you just have to follow the steps like I tell you to, and you will get the right answer. About eight years ago, our school chose a method of teaching math in which the point was conceptual understanding. The program itself was called Investigations, and I became an avid proponent.

 My math education was a result of the "just do it" approach and I blame that approach on my math phobia, my Ds in Algebra in high school, and my general hatred of math. The trainer, Gail P., opened my mind, exercised my math muscles, guided me to understanding. I was sold. There were some problems with this curriculum, admittedly. It didn't align well to Hawaii standards. This didn't  mean our school was necessarily on the wrong track, but we didn't test well; standardized tests don't assess conceptual understanding well. It was also inefficient, and perhaps too free-flowing. We want kids to develop understanding, but we want them to be disciplined thinkers. It didn't emphasize fluency so much, and many kids just did not have their "facts" down. We ended up having to do a juggling act, to include all the different components and expectations into our program. 

And now comes Common Core. The PR on it claims to be about critical thinking and conceptual understanding. But when it comes down to it, it really goes back to the "just do it" math. This is what I am experiencing as we implement our new GoMath curriculum that is aligned with the CC. I believe there was a conflict among math educators about computational fluency versus conceptual understanding. It seems as if elements of both got into the CC, but what side is going to rule supreme? 

I just discovered that the CC standard does not specify the use of the traditional algorithm in division until 6th grade. This is somewhat good news, as my students, who have been developing conceptual understanding, are having a hard time making the leap to "just do it" math. I can go back to school on Monday, and tell them what I have found. This will relieve some stress, I hope. It's strange because the GoMath curriculum includes the traditional algorithm in division. The writers were probably on the side of computational fluency in the math wars.  

I have several students who have transferred from other schools or even other countries. When we were working on conceptual strategies (distributive property, inverse operations, partial quotients, using models), they struggled. Now that we have moved on to the traditional algorithm, they are so happy, because they have already been taught this and know it by rote. 

My other students, most of whom I have had since 4th grade and have been in our school since kindergarten, are reacting the opposite. They don't understand it because it doesn't make sense. They are right. It doesn't make sense. It only makes sense to mathematicians and maybe math teachers, because they understand how it works. When you try to explain to a 5th grader how it works, it is very abstract and leads to confusion. If you teach the "just do it" way, there is no expectation to understand how it works, so it was easier for students to learn it. 

But it contributed to the prevalence of rote thinking. So what? you may say. They'll get the right answer and that's all that matters. And therein lies the question. Is getting the "answer" the most important thing? You see how the math wars went?

 In the end, a math teacher has to take a stand one way or the other. This is my process for deciding my stand:  (1) Why is math important to the average person? Math helps you to understand the world. If you have a sense of numbers and what numbers mean, you have a better sense of your place in the world. (2) So what method is better for an average person to make sense of the world? Conceptual math, I believe. Anyone can compute any problem on a calculator. No one really NEEDS to learn how to add, subtract, multiply, or divide. But an educated person needs to have a sense of what the numbers mean in order to make sense of the world. Learning to do computation is a good mental exercise because it develops an understanding of what numbers mean. But computation at the expense of thinking leads to rote thinking, surface thinking. It does not pass the litmus test of helping you to understand the world. 

There may be some students who will not go into the deeper areas of conceptual understanding, who will only do the "just do it" way, and they will generally be fine, calculator in hand to subtract 123- 12. But my goals for my students are more than that. My goals for my students are for them to be so comfortable with their sense of numbers and how they work, that they will see a scam right away, they will see mistakes in computations,  they will be able to identify when something just doesn't make sense, they will be questioners and thinkers, they will feel confident in the world and in what they can do in it. 

So, if you wonder why I am so uncomfortable teaching kids to "just do it," that's why. 

 Keeping track of their division progress. It was a bad day for the beginners. 

One Quarter Down, Three to Go ...

On this, the Sunday before returning to work after a week break, I am taking a moment to reflect on my vision, the reason I started this blog. Am I the teacher I want to be? 

The answer is no, I'm DP, developing proficiency. Implementing a new curriculum with the Common Core standards was a huge bear on my pathway.  The Common Core expected them to have mastered a lot of skills last year, that we didn't expect them to have mastered until the end of this year. That doesn't mean we haven't been doing our jobs, and it definitely doesn't mean the CC are better than our current standards. It just means the standards are higher, for better or worse. (That is a topic for another blog piece).

So, because I perceived that the students are way behind where they "should" be, I was in panic mode trying to catch them up. It was always like this. The Hawaii standards were not easy. It was always about getting the students to meet standards, and they didn't all meet them. All along from kindergarten up to us in 5th grade, you have students at all levels. There are a few who do fine, who meet standards, who go on to middle school and beyond, and do well. Because of our focus on standards, they do fine. Even the average students eventually catch up, with effort. The struggle was always on the ones who are well below the standards. And now, it is even more difficult. I am trying to cram into them learning in one quarter that used to take the whole year. And it is not possible. The only way cramming is successful is if everyone - teacher, parents, student - participates in the cramming. And they don't. 

Here is the dilemma: There is more content to learn because of the higher standards. The higher standards are pretty much rote learning, despite what the PR sell is on how the CC is about critical thinking and problem-solving.  I want to be the Teacher that makes learning engaging, relevant, and meaningful. Can there be a synthesis? A compromise? 

I think if I stick religiously with the curriculum materials that we are using, then I will never be the Teacher I Want to Be. I need to be able to use the parts that will be the most useful, and then let the rest go. I need to look at what works in my classroom that most takes kids from where they are - to get to the next level. I need to identify the math content that is the most challenging and impactful, and finds ways to break it down so that all of my students can find their entry point from which to proceed. I need to use science as the venue for critical thinking and problem-solving. I need to have a balance between math practice and skill-building and science. 

So, I have, on paper (digital), come up with a plan to do this. More differentiated projects and structures for skill-building. More science to develop those 21st century skills - collaboration, communication, critical thinking and problem-solving. Am I full of it, am I blowing air? Well, change starts with an idea, becomes developed with a plan, then it's a matter of making it a reality. Step by step. Idea by idea, plan by plan. 

I'll let you know how it goes.

Why Take a Stand on Marriage Equality? Because of Love ...

A friend colleague of mine asked me why HSTA (Hawaii State Teachers Association) made a statement recently supporting marriage equality. She said she has heard people will quit their membership over this. Though I am no longer on the Board, I can only guess at what the debate may have been. First of all, I know that the National Education Association, our parent national union, is at it's core, all about social justice. The roots of the NEA are intertwined with civil rights history, including the abolition of slavery, gender equality, and racial equality. One of their strongest departments is the Human and Civil Rights departments. As a national organization, it is not surprising that they be on the forefront of pushing for equality for all. As a union, we find resonance with the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) quote, "An injury to one is an injury to all. " 

But going from the big picture to the small, from the abstract to the concrete, we know that our membership, like any cross-section of society, includes people who happen to love members of their own gender. These are my colleagues, these are my friends, my very dear friends. When it comes down to that  - away from what is being said at the pulpit or conservative media - how can you not want your friends to have the same rights as you have? 

I don't know what their argument is. I am a die-hard liberal, a progressive Christian and perhaps as set in my ways as they are. It is an effort for me to see it from their point of view. Could it be the same argument that was put forward by those who advocated for slavery way back when, that the slaves were not to be considered human, so they did not deserve human rights? Or those who tried to keep women and non-whites from achieving voting rights, that women and non-whites did not have the capacity to vote intelligently, and so it would not serve society to give them the right to vote? Or those who thought a woman's place was in the home and if granted equal rights, the fabric of society, the home, would be destroyed? I can imagine that it is along those lines - something about the fabric of society and the decline of civilization.

But once you know and love a gay person, how in the world is it possible to maintain those beliefs about them? How can you not want them to have equal rights? How can you not want them to marry a person that they love and want to be committed to for their lifetime? More love will make the world more loving, a better place. In this world of petty politics, of abuse and hatred of all kinds, let there be love! 

Strengthening my Stand: Thanks to Diane Ravitch's new book, Reign of Error

When I started speaking up against high-stakes testing in the era of No Child Left Behind, one of the common reactions I got from veteran teachers was, don't worry, this too will pass. They knew not to take anything seriously because of the pendulum swing of so-called innovation. I couldn't help but think there was more to what was going on than that, and I did worry. When I started to articulate that it's about the destruction of public education - they must have thought I was a paranoid conspiracy theorist. But with Diane Ravitch's new book, Reign of Error, subtitled "The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools," I feel validated. It is not a matter of a pendulum swing, it has been a planned takeover, a hoax. 

Ravitch is a historian. She documents her claims with evidence. She carefully lays out the hoax, how the corporate reformers, or privatizers, have deliberately and stealthily misled the public and politicians to perceive a crisis, so that they can claim their ultimate prize - control of public education and thereby it's destruction. She documents how the corporate reformers have taken some originally well-intended ideas, like charter schools and Teach for America, and managed to distort them to meet their needs, to make them fit into the plan to destroy public education. 

This is not a partisan effort. Bush's No Child Left Behind policy caused more than it's fair share of the harm, but the abuse became intensified with Obama's Race to the Top, and his administration's other programs that over-emphasized testing and a solely economic justification for education. 

This is all meaty stuff - depressing and negative. But it is negative in the way that bad news is negative. It's bad, but it's still news. We must face the facts, so that we can do something about it.

This is what I love best about the book. Throughout the book, there is a thread of hope as she contrasts the corporate agenda to what it's supposed to be, what it should be, what it can be.  I highlighted those silver threads whenever I saw them, here are a few, with positive solutions underlined:

"Once upon a time, education reformers thought deeply about the relationship between school and society. They thought about child development as the starting point. "(P.19)

"The reformers define the purpose of education as preparation for global competitiveness, higher education, or the workforce. They view students as "human capital" or "assets " one seldom sees ... the importance of developing full persons to assume the responsibilities of citizenship." (P. 34-35)

"Children who are poor receive less medical attention and less nutrition, and experience more stress, disruption, and crises in their lives.... That is why por children need even more stability, more support, smaller class sizes, and more attention from their teachers and others in their schools, but often receive far less, due to underfunding." (P. 36)

"Of course we can do better. Students should be writing more and reading more and doing more science projects and more historical research papers and should have more opportunities to engage in the arts." (P.54)

"If we were serious about narrowing the gap ... schools ... would have a stable, experienced teacher, a rich curriculum, social services, after-school programs, and abundant resources to meet the needs of their students." (P.59)

Regarding teacher evaluation based on student test scores: "If by great, we mean teachers who awaken students' desire to learn, who kindle in their students a sense of excitement about learning, scores on standardized tests do not identify those teachers." (P.113) 

"...there remains the essential question of why scores on standardized tests should displace every goal and expectation for schools: character, knowledge, citizenship, love of learning, creativity, initiative, and social skills." (P.114)

"Also forgotten is that public schools were created by communities and states for a "civic purpose." In the nineteenth century, they were also called "common schools." They were a project of the public commons, the community. They were created to build and sustain democracy, to teach young people how to live and work together with others, and to teach the skills and knowledge needed to participate fully in society." (P.207 )

The last thirteen chapters focus on solutions and a brighter future, which have also been woven within the text of the previous chapters which define the many faces of the hoax and the many-pronged efforts to privatize public schools. So, reading this book, you come away empowered - you feel Power because you know the truth, and you know what to offer as an alternative to what is happening now. 

I am a product of regular public schools as is my now-grown daughter and most of my family. I may not ever have grandchildren (I cannot lie, I hope to) but I still want to fight for public schools as a great cause. I believe in public schools like I believe in democracy. In fact, the two are intertwined.

If we envision a future society rich in culture and arts, thriving businesses, satisfied workers, happy and healthy families, a society peopled by good citizens who help each other, who vote, pay taxes to support the commons, and serve on juries to ensure the carriage of justice, then we must have schools that reflect that. Right now, if society is a reflection of the schools, there would be a shortage of music and art, chaotic physical activities, little science, poor health and nutrition, and little sense of history and no knowledge of what it means to be a citizen in a democratic society. 

I hope there are bright lights out there. More and more instead of less and less. I want my experiences with my students be more a reflection of this healthy society. That's the teacher I want to be. Thank you Diane Ravitch for strengthening my stand.