So the other day Jack (1st) was counting mixed coins. He got to 67 cents and had a quarter left. Instantly he said "oh so I had 2 10s so 77, 87 and then add 5 so 92 cents" like boom done and he just learning the concept of coins and addition.
And my mind was blown how he broke it down all while I was trying to add 67+25 in m head. I was like omg that was so much easier lol.
Do we really put gymnastics and piano on the same level as numeracy and literacy? Are we okay with kids just 'getting through' something?
How can people complain about the horrible test results and then not want to listen to what people who research these things say will help? If we can change our mindset and believe that students CAN succeed at math, more of them WILL.
It was just an example, calm down. I do think that some people truly have to just 'get through' some things, including certain subjects. I didn't mention literacy, of course reading is a must. I also mentioned tutoring, many kids get held back, whatever it takes.
Why are you telling me to calm down? What is it about my answer that let you to believe that I was riled? I asked a question based on your example.
So what is really being said, is that for some people, mediocrity at math is fine. If that is truly how people feel, that's fine. But then complaining about low test scores really shouldn't happen, it should be expected since some kids just can't achieve.
Can we stop comparing soccer to math? It's a reach. You don't need basic soccer skills to live a life. You do need basic math skills.
If they way we teach math now reaches more kids, then it's worth it. The point is that there are more ways to do and learn math than in the olden days (lol). This can only be helpful.
Why are you telling me to calm down? What is it about my answer that let you to believe that I was riled? I asked a question based on your example.
So what is really being said, is that for some people, mediocrity at math is fine. If that is truly how people feel, that's fine. But then complaining about low test scores really shouldn't happen, it should be expected since some kids just can't achieve.
Omg, I'm done, you can keep fighting math without me. I gave an example of piano/gymnastics, as we were not just talking math, you asked if we were really comparing that to math/literacy, that's why my calm down response. Of course math can't be compared to piano or gymnastics, it was just an example.
Mofo out.
My question was genuine, not TIC…I simply didn't think my comment required a calm down. I understand your example (I have given sports analogies previously in this thread as well I believe), my point was more that excelling or not excelling a sport or some other activity doesn't seem to be as significant an issue as excelling or not excelling (or even being competent) as something like math. I don't know if that makes sense. Anyways, sorry I pissed you off, not my intent. I like debating these things.
I am not totally with it as far as teaching methods but I have an honest question (no snark).
People are talking about raising math scores with this new teaching method. let's assume all schools used the old method 10 years ago. There was a range of test schools with some schools having higher test scores and some having low test scores but they were all teaching using the same method. So why the difference in scores?
It's been shown that for the most part schools in wealthier areas have better schools and better test scores right? Why is that? Not because they were teaching some other way but they have better resources, better teachers, bigger budgets.
We do understand what you're saying. What we're saying is- you could have been taught to play soccer if better methods had been used. Not that you could have gone pro- but that you could have learned to play.
I completely disagree, not everybody can do everything. Honestly, if we could the world would be a boring place. Sure, you could show me HOW to do something, but that doesn't mean I'll be any good at it. Team @misoangry.
again. Not good. We're not putting values on it. I'm just saying improve.
We do understand what you're saying. What we're saying is- you could have been taught to play soccer if better methods had been used. Not that you could have gone pro- but that you could have learned to play.
Anybody can learn something.
Not everybody can be good at that something.
When did I ever say that somebody couldn't learn?
that's exactly what "I'm not a math person" means. It's not- I tried and failed. It's- I'm not good at it so I shouldn't try.
I ask this genuinely, one day, if a teacher says to you, "your child just isn't good at ….", will you be okay with that? Are you okay with the educators in her life being okay with her being mediocre, or, worse, being bad at something?
The point is that if students believe they aren't good at something, that they won't be good at it, they give up on learning. That IS a problem.
Edit: I am having a sudden fear that misobaby isn't a girl…but I feel like she is. If I am wrong, I am sorry!
This is why some kids need tutoring in certain subjects, getting through something and being good at it aren't the same. I got kicked out of gymnastics as a child, lol, however, I excelled at piano.
no. Educators don't have the luxury to think this way. Can you imagine the outcry if schools started saying to students, "sorry kids. If you want to get better you need a tutor. Can't afford one? Oh well!"
I am not totally with it as far as teaching methods but I have an honest question (no snark).
People are talking about raising math scores with this new teaching method. let's assume all schools used the old method 10 years ago. There was a range of test schools with some schools having higher test scores and some having low test scores but they were all teaching using the same method. So why the difference in scores?
It's been shown that for the most part schools in wealthier areas have better schools and better test scores right? Why is that? Not because they were teaching some other way but they have better resources, better teachers, bigger budgets.
So....why not address those issues?
how do you propose schools do this aside from what they're already doing (food, social services.)
I think you're absolutely right but I'm not sure what teachers can do about it.
I am not totally with it as far as teaching methods but I have an honest question (no snark).
People are talking about raising math scores with this new teaching method. let's assume all schools used the old method 10 years ago. There was a range of test schools with some schools having higher test scores and some having low test scores but they were all teaching using the same method. So why the difference in scores?
It's been shown that for the most part schools in wealthier areas have better schools and better test scores right? Why is that? Not because they were teaching some other way but they have better resources, better teachers, bigger budgets.
So....why not address those issues?
how do you propose schools do this aside from what they're already doing (food, social services.)
I think you're absolutely right but I'm not sure what teachers can do about it.
There are still so many other issues facing children in these areas like parents who don't value education or who don't speak English, or they live in areas riddled with drugs and gangs or they live in homeless shelters.
that's exactly what "I'm not a math person" means. It's not- I tried and failed. It's- I'm not good at it so I shouldn't try.
I don't necessarily agree with this. I describe myself as "not a math person" because I really hate math. I got A's in math, and went through calculus II. I never failed, but I certainly had to try wayyyyyy harder than any other subject which came naturally to me. I am just not inclined to math at all and I recognize that. Science, arts, English? I didn't even have to try. But plenty of people would also say they are not inclined to those subjects too, without failing them.
I am not totally with it as far as teaching methods but I have an honest question (no snark).
People are talking about raising math scores with this new teaching method. let's assume all schools used the old method 10 years ago. There was a range of test schools with some schools having higher test scores and some having low test scores but they were all teaching using the same method. So why the difference in scores?
It's been shown that for the most part schools in wealthier areas have better schools and better test scores right? Why is that? Not because they were teaching some other way but they have better resources, better teachers, bigger budgets.
So....why not address those issues?
how do you propose schools do this aside from what they're already doing (food, social services.)
I think you're absolutely right but I'm not sure what teachers can do about it.
No teachers can't do anything about it, it would require an overhaul of the system.
I just don't understand why they are overhauling math to improve test scores when that's not really the problem.
Additionally I hate when US scores are compared to other countries. We offer education to everyone. many of the countries that outperform us do not do that. It's not an apples to apples comparison so I think it's unfair to make policy changes based on these national rankings and this constant panic about the US being behind when that may not actually be the case.
how do you propose schools do this aside from what they're already doing (food, social services.)
I think you're absolutely right but I'm not sure what teachers can do about it.
There are still so many other issues facing children in these areas like parents who don't value education or who don't speak English, or they live in areas riddled with drugs and gangs or they live in homeless shelters.
It's much easier to mandate a certain curriculum than it is to create and implement an equitable funding formula for schools, or to pour millions into neighborhoods to reinvigorate them.
It's a lot easier to blame teachers/teaching for poor performance than it is to address the societal issues that make it MUCH harder for less affluent, homeless, at-risk kids to do well on tests.
that's exactly what "I'm not a math person" means. It's not- I tried and failed. It's- I'm not good at it so I shouldn't try.
I don't necessarily agree with this. I describe myself as "not a math person" because I really hate math. I got A's in math, and went through calculus II. I never failed, but I certainly had to try wayyyyyy harder than any other subject which came naturally to me. I am just not inclined to math at all and I recognize that. Science, arts, English? I didn't even have to try. But plenty of people would also say they are not inclined to those subjects too, without failing them.
I see that. I think you'd be in the minority though. Few people persevere through and excel at subjects that they find very difficult. But perhaps "bad at math" would be a better phrase to use.
how do you propose schools do this aside from what they're already doing (food, social services.)
I think you're absolutely right but I'm not sure what teachers can do about it.
No teachers can't do anything about it, it would require an overhaul of the system.
I just don't understand why they are overhauling math to improve test scores when that's not really the problem.
Additionally I hate when US scores are compared to other countries. We offer education to everyone. many of the countries that outperform us do not do that. It's not an apples to apples comparison so I think it's unfair to make policy changes based on these national rankings and this constant panic about the US being behind when that may not actually be the case.
bc who wants to solve poverty when we can just shift the focus and pressure on educators? :-p
Seriously, I asked myself this nearly every day when I first started teaching. Our gains would be much greater if we tackled the big problems.
I must say that conversations like this make me glad I homeschooled. I am not a rote memorization person. Classic math techniques do not work for me. Fortunately my mother understood other learning techniques and taught me in a method similar to this new and crazy style people are so opposed to. It worked quite well for me. Unfortunately I ended up in public school later where only one method of thought was acceptable and I wasn't allowed to use logic to get to the correct answer. I was told I was bad at math and it was very discouraging.
Honestly, I have a very mathematical/analytical mind. While I grew to hate math classes because of my teachers, I'm still very good at problem solving and mental math using groupings and visual types of thought.
It really irritates me when people say the classical style is the right way and other ways shouldn't be used/are inferior/etc. It's basically saying, "well it was the right style of learning for my brain so it's the best and everyone should use it." No, it is best for one group of people. That's it.
I totally get what you are saying. I totally might have been a shitty artist either way, but, maybe with more practice (and the willingness to do the practice because I believed I could improve), I might have at least been a better artist.
Some people believe that all talent and skill is innate. Others believe in the 10 000 hour philosophy - it takes 10 000 hours to master something. If you do the math (lol, great pun for this thread), someone who gets their PhD in math has easily spent 10 000 hours working on math over the course of their studies…the bulk of which would have been done AFTER elementary school and even still, the bulk of which is really done at the University level.
So what about someone who, rather than believing they are good at math, comes to believe they are actually, innately bad at it. Not because they tried and still couldn't learn, but because somewhere along the way they were made to believe they couldn't learn, or rather, that it wasn't worth trying because they would never be great and therefore they lost interest and motivation.
Well that person wouldn't even come close to 10 000 hours of practice. That would be me and art (and music, and tennis, and piano, and German, and lots of other things, lol). Obviously people aren't going to do 10 000 hours of practice at everything - that's not the point.
But if a kid gives up on themselves in math because they 'just aren't good at it', well…I guess it depends when they give up…at 8? 12? 16? How many hours did they ever really give to it?
What if instead, they are taught to believe that they can increase their capacity to learn, that rather than 'just being bad at math' they can actually 'get better at math'…well then, maybe they won't give up as early. No, they likely won't get to 10 000 hours. But what if they got to 1500 hours instead of only 750. What might doubling their positive exposure lead to?
I guess my question is, how can believing that all students ARE capable of learning math hurt?
You're going to hate my answer, but I'm going to give it anyway.
I'm a really efficient person. I do try new things. I am certainly open to doing so. But, if I'm not particularly good at something, I don't really bother continuing to do that thing. The last thing I'd want to do is do that thing for 10,000 hours -- that is a waste of time to me.
Instead, I like discovering my strengths and making those strengths even stronger.
I'm going to draw one more analogy to piano, which, yes, like sports, is not "essential" to life like math allegedly is, but it is one concrete personal anecdote that I have.
I used to take piano lessons from a really mean, strict teacher. Her goal was for each of her students to win as may competitions as possible. A girl I knew (let's call her Grace Chen) practiced so much. Grace Chen practiced more than all of us did -- maybe four hours every single day for at least 10 years. Yet Grace Chen never won a single competition. Nada. Meanwhile, the rest of us won fairly regularly and didn't practice nearly as hard. I always wondered why Grace Chen didn't find something else to do because clearly she had extraordinary discipline and perseverance. Had she stopped piano and found her true calling, who knows what greatness she could've achieved?*
We are never going to agree. I staunchly believe that it is ok to try something, discover you are not great at it, and pursue other interests at which you excel. Colleges believe this, too -- hence, the selection of a major. You no longer have to keep learning everything. You do what you like, and what you like is usually what you do well. People also typically select professions at which they can excel. There is little to no reason to continue doing stuff at which you suck.
The reality is we all suck at something. Sometimes that something is math.
You and others keep saying how essential math is to life, but, practically speaking, I have zero need for math in my life beyond simple arithmetic. What are people doing every day that requires non-arithmetic math?
Is it so bad to acknowledge that some people are good at certain things and others are not? And, when you discover you are not great at something, you can turn your attention and efforts to things you can do well and do those things even better?
I see no reason to go through life Grace Chen-ing away precious hours that will ultimately be for naught.
We have fundamentally different philosophies on this matter.
*This is not to say that proficiency in piano performance is measured solely by competition wins, but this was the sole reason people hired this particular piano teacher. If your goal were to enjoy music, you wouldn't go to this teacher.
I ask this genuinely, one day, if a teacher says to you, "your child just isn't good at ….", will you be okay with that? Are you okay with the educators in her life being okay with her being mediocre, or, worse, being bad at something?
The point is that if students believe they aren't good at something, that they won't be good at it, they give up on learning. That IS a problem.
Edit: I am having a sudden fear that misobaby isn't a girl…but I feel like she is. If I am wrong, I am sorry!
Yes, of course I would be ok with that. In fact, I would be grateful to receive a professional opinion on the matter.
If somebody had told Grace Chen's mother this, perhaps Grace Chen could've done something else for 10,000 hours -- something at which she could have actually kicked ass.
how do you propose schools do this aside from what they're already doing (food, social services.)
I think you're absolutely right but I'm not sure what teachers can do about it.
There are still so many other issues facing children in these areas like parents who don't value education or who don't speak English, or they live in areas riddled with drugs and gangs or they live in homeless shelters.
If we can change our mindset and believe that students CAN succeed at math, more of them WILL.
Ok, now I know we are like night and day. LOL.
I respect you, and you seem like a wonderful educator.
Your passion is unparalleled, and your students are lucky to have you.
But I think we must agree to disagree.
To be fair, I am not just saying this, it is also the premise of the thesis and research done by the researchers out of Stanford that I quoted.
That being said, it saddens me that people would be surprised when an educator believes this. If I don't believe that believing in a child's capacity to learn will make a difference, what is the point in doing my job?
I respect you, and you seem like a wonderful educator.
Your passion is unparalleled, and your students are lucky to have you.
But I think we must agree to disagree.
To be fair, I am not just saying this, it is also the premise of the thesis and research done by the researchers out of Stanford that I quoted.
That being said, it saddens me that people would be surprised when an educator believes this. If I don't believe that believing in a child's capacity to learn will make a difference, what is the point in doing my job?
you can't simultaneously believe anyone can learn anything AND that you can't learn so you shouldn't try.
I think you've made it clear you don't think anyone can learn anything so I'm not sure why you said that. Lol.
You really don't get it.
Anyone can learn any thing.
Not everyone can be good at that thing.
When you discover you're not particularly good at that thing, I don't believe there is a need to continue trying.
For example, when you discover you're not good at arguing, you may consider sticking to math.
Wow. Ok. I agree that we are just going to have to agree to disagree because this statement blows me away. I agree that not everything can be amazing at everything...but wow. So for example, if my kid isn't innately good at swimming, I should just let her give up even though knowing how to swim is a safety issue and life skill? There are many life skills that are important for people to know the basics of, regardless of innate ability. (One of which is perseverance, not quitting just because something is hard).
And your last statement has me surprised. You are not normally a snarky person.
To be fair, I am not just saying this, it is also the premise of the thesis and research done by the researchers out of Stanford that I quoted.
That being said, it saddens me that people would be surprised when an educator believes this. If I don't believe that believing in a child's capacity to learn will make a difference, what is the point in doing my job?
I don't know. Maybe I'll get kicked out of the teachers' club, but I sort of agree with miso here.
I teach HS English (I do not know the specifics of the new math strategies because I do not teach it, so I'll talk about English).
There are some students who do not excel at English concepts. Yes, of course I still teach them. And of course, if students struggle, I will work with them one-on-one or in groups and teach the concept in alternate ways. Differentiation is the name of the game in education, as all the teachers know. And yes, I do that.
But, let's take grammar, for instance. Many of my students REALLY struggle with grammar, especially more advanced concepts, like adverbial and adjectival clauses, which I'm teaching now, so it's at the forefront of my mind. Yes, of course I teach these things, and I will re-teach it and teach it in new ways if I need to. But there are some students who really are not good at this. And I recognize that. Do I tell them, "Hey, you suck at this"? Of course not. THEY usually say that to me.
So I work with them to get them through the testing on this concept. But as far as grammar goes, I want to send kids out in the world who can write a grammatically correct sentence. I completely realize the VAST majority of my students will never have to find and label an adjectival phrase ever again in their life. Doesn't mean I don't teach it and help them. But I recognize that. So I make it my mission to help the kids who really struggle with grammar just be able to write a complete sentence that is not a fragment or run-on, that starts with a capital and has some sort of appropriate end punctuation and is free of texting language, because that IS what they need to be able to do in life, on resumes, in professional e-mails, etc.
Not every kid will be good at grammar. The ones who are not, I just try to get them to the most basic skills they will need in life. I don't feel bad about that at all.
I know the original post was about a new way of teaching math, and I am not opposed to that at all. I am more replying to the direction the thread has taken since then.