Baltimore City Public Schools introduced in the last two years a new instructional framework based on "rigor, engagement, and intervention." According to the framework, students in Baltimore City classrooms need to be engaged in high level learning at all times, and those who are not achieving at these rigorous levels need to have interventions so that they can master skills and then move on to higher level work. To these ends, the city has pushed efforts for more collaborative teamwork in classrooms, student-centered, and inquiry-based learning, especially in math and science.
At the same time, in focusing on the instruction piece of student learning, many schools are spending time developing teachers' proficiency in explicit instruction. Explicit instruction is often thought of as a more traditional method of instruction, and is characterized in some education circles as the "old" method of teaching. However, in an article on EducationNews.org, Barry Garelick offers a still-untested hypothesis that it is explicit instruction and a "back to basics" approach that is needed in math to lower the rates of students categorized as special needs. In his article, "Mathematics Education: Being Outwitted by Stupidity," Garelick argues that low levels of success later in school are a result of poor understandings and mastery of basic math processes and facts. In order to obtain this basic knowledge, math instruction needs explicit instruction and automaticity rather than an emphasis on conceptual knowledge in the early years.
Garelick suggests that educators not abandon "traditional" math instruction that could have "failed millions" because it was improperly given. Rather, he writes, it might actually be what is necessary to finally reach those higher levels of rigor everyone wants. There are many critics to the "drill and kill" style of teaching, and yet there are also great numbers of students (many in BCPSS) who can not keep up with math at higher levels. Perhaps when it comes to math, a happy medium must be found.
Note: The discussion that follows the article is very interesting and plays into the debate over a wide, shallow curriculum (that many states currently have) and the narrower, deeper Common Core State Standards that do not spiral as much material through the grade levels.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"...so that they can master skills and then move on to higher level work. To these ends, the city has pushed efforts for more collaborative teamwork in classrooms, student-centered, and inquiry-based learning, especially in math and science."
Those techniques do not ensure mastery of skills. That's the problem. Curricula like Everyday Math push kids along without worring about mastery at any one point in time. They spiral through the material in the hope that kids will learn when they are ready. It doesn't work. The spiral is so shallow that it is not scaffolding, but repeated partial learning. As the grades go on, kids get more and more gaps in their skills, and teachers can't possibly diagnose, let alone fix, many of them. The solution is not intervention, but to not let the problems arise in the first place. Direct instruction does not waste time and is usually concerned about mastery of skills, which, by the way, are not rote by definition. There is no magical understanding that makes it OK not to master the basics.
I had to ensure mastery of the basics at home while my son was going through 5 years of Everyday Math. Schools would even send home notes telling us parents to work on math facts with our kids. If Everyday Math didn't work for affluent kids without help at home, how could it possibly work in an urban environment?
Nobody disagrees with balance, but it's not defined. Even the CCSS standards are vague on this point. Just count the number of times "fluent" is used. They don't even define what it means.
Why is it that many mathematicians and engineers feel so strongly about mastery of basic skills? It's not like we're ignorant of educational pedagogy or that we only want what we had when we were growing up. Back when I taught college algebra, nobody could possibly pass with only rote skills. There is linkage between skills and understanding. There are many levels of understanding and there is conceptual understanding and abstract understanding. One can't be happy with a vague pie-chart understanding of fractions when the student will have to be able to handle rational expressions.
"Perhaps when it comes to math, a happy medium must be found."
No, for K-6, you will have to set much higher standards and be willing to separate kids by ability and willingness to learn. There can't be one "medium" for all. If you do that, then any sort of STEM career will be all over for most students by 7th grade.
Post a Comment