Math Proficiency to Remain Stagnant

Math is important. Science, engineering and technology depend on it.

?The United States has experienced a math teacher shortage for decades. The pandemic exacerbated that issue. School districts have had to fill positions with good, hardworking dedicated people whose knowledge and understanding of math is suspect. In a nutshell, teachers cannot teach effectively or efficiently what they do not know.

?The community believes, foolheartedly, that evaluations by school administrators will improve student success in math. In realty, principals evaluating math instruction know a lot less math than the less than qualified teachers they are supervising. The refrain I hear most often from principals is “ I have the best math department in the district”. ?The fact is most principals would not recognize good math instruction even if they tripped over it.

?The great majority of evaluations of math teachers are based on “instructional” strategies. Those strategies emphasize things like: lesson planning, starting class on time, student engagement, peer teaching, implementing think-pair-share, observing word walls, classroom management, strategic grouping, etc. Please note, the absence of actual math. To improve math achievement, it would seem we would need to discuss math. Instructional strategies should be secondary or tertiary to math content strategies if we are serious about math achievement.

?To teach math effectively requires implementing math content strategies; knowing definitions (vocabulary & notation), linking concepts and skills to previous learning and outside experiences, introducing new topics using simple straight-forward examples that work, that clarify and don’t distract students with needless arithmetic, then scaffolding examples to reach grade level expectations. Using visuals, models, and, identifying patterns, being able to compare and contrast which then leads to making good decisions.

?Too many administrators would look at these 2 division problems as equally difficult;

A)?????? 1397 ÷ 31?????

B)?????? 1397 ÷ 37.?

They sure look alike, but problem A is much easier than problem B.

?In A, the trial divisor works and there is no regrouping. In B, the trial divisor does not work and there is regrouping.

?As basic as these examples are, the examples suggest the importance using “nice” numbers when introducing a skill and scaffolding to get to grade level expectations. Would an administrator pick up on that and provide recommendations that would help students succeed? My experience is the answer is no

?Knowing that the trig identity; cos^2x + sin^2x = 1, the equation of a circle, the distance formula are all the Pythagorean Theorem (c^2 = a^2 + b^2), written differently because they are being used in different contexts. Math teachers talk about slope in school, driving over a mountain, that’s called the grade of the hill, building a house, we discuss pitch of a roof. ?In education, it’s called growth. We can’t keep teaching math concepts and skills in isolation and wonder why students struggle.

?If we know there is a relationship between logarithms and exponentials, we’d be able to use that linkage to see how they are related and make learning so much easier for students. For instance, the rules for operating with exponentials are parallel to the rules for logarithms. When you find the product of a log, you add the logarithms. Finding products of exponentials, you add the exponents.

?Those types of linkages allow teachers to review, reinforce or address student deficiencies as they teach their assigned curriculum and allows teachers to introduce “new” topics in a familiar language which makes students more comfortable in their new learning. And, did you notice the repetition that would take place? Could the administrator evaluating and supervising that teacher provide recommendations to tie these concepts and skills together? Again, the answer is no

?Like anything in life, practice is needed. Whether you are learning a dance, a song, making free throws, making a speech or doing math, repetition is needed. But it is also discouraged in math classrooms. You hear expressions like “drill kills”, that’s too many problems, don’t give homework, etc. ?What we know is lack of practice leads to failure.

?Practice allows students to pick up on the nuances they need by comparing and contrasting similar looking problems. For instance, knowing the procedure for adding fractions is important and allows students to acquire the language. But, there are nuances that students acquire with practice. For example, to add those fractions, students have to determine if they find the common denominator by multiplying, writing multiples, finding the least common multiple, or using the reducing method. Not picking up on those nuances by practice problems and not choosing the most appropriate method can make math more difficult for students.

?Other examples, solving systems of equations, students need to decide to solve them by graphing, elimination, substitution or Cramer’s Rule. With quadratic equations, do they solve them by the Zero Product Property, the X-Squared Method, Completing the Square, or the Quadratic Formula. Making those decisions depend upon the problem, comparing & contrasting, and the experiences students had working practice problems, that lead to a decision.

?When districts and school administrators don’t have a clue on how to address poor proficiency and achievement rates, they tend to adopt the Pontius Pilot strategy. They buy a program and wash their hands of the problem. Here’s a newsflash, buying a program is the first sign school leaders don’t have a clue how to address an issue. And, programs are only as good as the teachers using them.

Other reasons proficiency and achievement rates will remain stagnant include local administrators not enrolling in math content professional development. Their national organizations are no better, they almost completely ignore the problem except for making sound-bytes. The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESPP), the Association of Latino Administrators and Superintendents (ALAS), and the National School Boards Association (NSBA) do relatively nothing to address school administrators being able to evaluate and supervise teachers in a meaningful way that actually addresses the math being taught . Just looking at their conferences, what you don’t see is any workshops on math content. They like to concentrate on the “big” picture. That’s just talk.

?To address our proficiency and achievement rates in math, teachers and administrators, have to enroll in math content professional development. Professional development that would emphasize the importance of vocabulary & notation, specific linkages, examples using specific simple straight forwards examples that work, that clarify that don’t distract students with needless arithmetic in initial instruction, that provide repeated scaffolding examples to get to grade level standards, provide resources that support those, and that develop tests that set students up for success, not only on chapter tests, but on high stakes tests such as semester exams, PARCC, SBAC, ACT and SATs.

?My expectation is school leaders and their national organizations will continue to talk the talk, but will not walk the walk by enrolling in math content professional development that would result in providing teachers with suggestions, recommendations or directions that will make math easier for students to learn and succeed. ASCD , AASA, The School Superintendents Association National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)