BlameTheTeacher

Reading over ParentPundit's post about Everyday Math, I encountered the following in the comments section, left by aschoolyardblogger. It's an argument one frequently hears to counter parents' and teachers' complaints about reform curricula.

It is a difficult task for teachers to begin any reform mathematics projects - their own math learning at first is being tested and reformed. One of the key ingredients, in my mind, is support provided through teacher training, but almost and maybe more important is the support of parents. One way to understand a math program like EM is to read through and do the exercises in the curriculum consecutively, openmindedly as a learner, not a an assessor. Play with the manipulatives, perhaps even borrow a teaching guide. These programs are much different, and much more exciting than the way we were taught. They are also very hard to describe. With some study, you might find yourself a great parent contributor to something your children's school is attempting to perfect.

Open your mind, Grasshopper: play with the manipulatives. Wax on, wax off.... I think teachers (and parents) need some sticking up for.

Math itself doesn't change much, and neither do people. Teachers who know how to teach math weren't invented by new curricula (for that matter, reform math curricula aren't a new invention, either). Nor have the rare teachers who take pleasure in humiliating children been stopped by the adoption of new curricula.

The truly exceptional teachers aren't the ones who need a supportive curriculum most; they can always roll their own. The whole purpose of a curriculum is to guide the process of teaching and learning for the majority of people. To argue that a curriculum fails only because of the failings of the teachers who must implement it is specious -- like arguing that Communism fails only because of the fallible people who must implement it.

Not to mention that the argument is insulting. God, teachers must get sick of these insinuations that their understanding needs 'reforming'. I know that parents do.

Learning to be a good teacher of math, like learning math itself, is very challenging. There is a depth of domain knowledge and pedagogical understanding that one can acquire over the course of a career in mathematics education; this pedagogical understanding should be what guides a teacher's explanation of mathematics in the classroom, not a 'Teaching Guide'. Only a teacher with a flexible approach that comes from deep understanding can come up with the fifth explanation that meets the needs of an individual child, when the first four have failed.

I've noticed that there are topics where Everyday Math does not offer cool new teaching methods, and they tend to be the topics that have always been difficult to teach: for example, division by fractions. These things are difficult to teach and understand because, well, they just are, no matter whose method you're using.

A math curriculum should be the foundation of a kid's math education. A teacher who has an exciting activity to try can supplement a curriculum, but the curriculum should provide enough guidance to ensure that the ground that needs to be covered, gets covered. The cool techniques that Everyday Math uses to enhance understanding can then serve as grace notes.

And it may sound absurdly pedestrian, but the second valuable thing that a good math curriculum can provide is a good set of problems for the children to work. A good problem set design is worth its weight in gold. Saxon has one. I'm not always crazy about Saxon math's explanations of methods, but its problem set is awesome.

A teacher who is motivated to try to acquire and pass on what Liping Ma refers to as Profound Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics -- and who is respected for trying -- can and must provide the rest.

Back to main page.

Comments

Users must register to comment.