What is this craziness?

From 1075 KZL Facebook Page

If we are to believe memes like this, the math currently being taught in schools has never been so meaningless. What exactly is this craziness? According to a recent NBC News story, it involves using number lines.

I understand that this approach can be confusing to adults who were taught an algorithm without really understanding why it works. Unfortunately, many of these adults have forgotten how memorizing rules without reasons made them feel as a kid.

As students, we wanted our mathematical efforts to make sense. But instead, we got little ditties like, "Mine is not to question why, just invert and multiply." So we made up that doing math simply meant following certain rules given by some authority.

It is reasonable that adults who grew up with this view of mathematics might be confused by instructional approaches meant to foster the development of mathematical understanding rather than rote rules. However, my primary concern is the confusion of the kids not the adults. To do otherwise is not only crazy, it is insane.

from 1Funny.com

How compelling was that single study?

Dear Editor,

Ever since Chancellor Fariña began advocating for using aspects of balanced literacy in New York City Public Schools (New York Times, 6/26/14), she has come under fire.  While her only action thus far has been to ask Lucy Calkins, a proponent of a balanced literacy approach, to do a seminar in August, the critics have cried foul. They argue that Chancellor Fariña is ignoring the results from a 2012 study of a pilot program called Core Knowledge Language Arts [CKLA] (New York Times, 3/11/12). Given the information provided about the study, however, these critics are seemingly misrepresenting the results.

Here are some of their arguments.

Daniel Willingham (on the Board of Trustees of the Core Knowledge Foundation) on 6/30/14

Three years later in 2012, the results were in: the kids in the Core Knowledge schools were reading better. The advantage was indisputable. 

Fariña was reminded of these results last week: how could she justify calling for a return to balanced literacy when another program had shown superior? 

Robert Pondiscio (worked for Core Knowledge) on 7/3/14

Yet the Education Department’s own three-year study comparing Core Knowledge with balanced literacy in demographically matched New York City schools showed the former “had significantly stronger gains than comparison school students on nearly all measures.”

E. D. Hirsch, Jr. (founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation), on 7/3/14

The New York City Department of Education recently did a three-year study comparing 20 schools. Ten used the Core Knowledge approach. Ten used balanced literacy. After analysis, the Core Knowledge results were deemed to be far better, to a high level of statistical significance. 

Alexander Nazaryan on 7/6/14

Ms. Calkins’s approach was tried by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, but abandoned when studies showed that students learned better with more instruction.

New York Daily News on 7/6/14

A 2012 a study found that a small group of balanced literacy schools lagged behind schools that used what’s known as Core Knowledge, ...

Michelle Gininger on 7/9/14 (at 9:51 into the podcast)

[The Bloomberg Administration] tested things out and saw, at least in that limited study, that Core Knowledge was working better for low-income kids ...

Whenever someone states, "the study shows," related to something as important as educating our children, please be wary. Our immediate response ought to be, "Where is the research? I would like to examine it for myself." In this case, many of the critics provide only a link to a New York Times article on the study from 3/11/12. It describes the study thusly:

For three years, a pilot program tracked the reading ability of approximately 1,000 students at 20 New York City schools, following them from kindergarten through second grade. Half of the schools adopted a curriculum designed by the education theorist E. D. Hirsch Jr.’s Core Knowledge Foundation. The other 10 used a variety of methods, but most fell under the definition of “balanced literacy,” an approach that was spread citywide by former Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein, beginning in 2003.

Based on this description, it seems unlikely that the study did a direct comparison between balanced literacy and CKLA. After an unproductive search for the actual study, I only found a PowerPoint on Core Knowledge Foundation's own website sharing the results from the CKLA Pilot. This is how the Core Knowledge Foundation described the study:

There is nothing about balanced literacy in this description. In fact, there is nothing about balanced literacy or Lucy Calkins in the entire PowerPoint.

If there is more to the study that supports the critics’ claim that a direct comparison was done between balanced literacy and CKLA, then it is up to them to provide that information. It is not enough to simply say, “a study shows.” Without the actual study to anchor the discussion, arguments can drift far from the actual results.

For example, given the history of balanced literacy in New York City Public Schools, perhaps the critics jumped to the conclusion that the comparison schools were using balanced literacy. Therefore, in their minds, CKLA was compared directly to balanced literacy. While this history might be enough to support their opinion in casual conversation, research conclusions require confirmation. And no evidence was provided that confirms that the comparison schools were using the instructional approach described by several of the authors under the banner of balanced literacy.


Every study, and anyone who wants to appropriately cite that study, is limited by the study’s design. The design of the CKLA Pilot Study limits how we can use the results. If the critics are serious that they want Chancellor Fariña to use data to inform education policy, then a new study ought to be conducted. That is what the International Reading Association suggests:

With greater care in the design, analysis, and reporting, these shortcomings could have been resolved. If we could have confidence that the gains that students in the Core Knowledge schools showed on assessments of reading comprehension, as well as assessments of science and social studies knowledge, could be attributed to the resources that were introduced, then there is cause for celebration. The Core Knowledge program could, in fact, be an important element in a truly “balanced” literacy curriculum. 

To his credit, even E. D. Hirsch, Jr. supports this idea. At the end of his opinion piece, he writes:

But I agree with the schools chancellor, Carmen Fariña. The study was too small. We need a bigger one – and one that gauges long-term as well as short-term effects.

In order to conduct the study the critics want, a direct comparison of balanced literacy and CKLA, some New York City Public Schools are going to have to adopt Lucy Calkins’s instructional approach. Simply adopting some aspects, as Chancellor Fariña suggests, will not be enough. Dr. Calkins will probably even have to conduct professional development workshops for New York City educators. Ah, the irony.

Let me end on a serious note. If we are committed to doing what is best for students and using education research to inform these decisions, then we need to start having serious discussions around the data we collect. Using a single education study to push an agenda or bash a potential competitor is irresponsible, as it often ignores other important results. Intentionally misrepresenting the study in an effort to suggest that our children are at risk is nothing short of propaganda and has no place in the discussion. Let’s make “the study shows” the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it.





Sincerely,
David Coffey
Professor of Mathematics Education
Grand Valley State University
Allendale, Michigan

When's the last time ... ?

I am so angry.

I just got done reading this piece by Michigan Radio's Jack Lessenberry about plans for making up school days missed this year in Michigan because of snow, ice, and cold. Some politicians want to extend the contact hours each day instead of adding days into summer vacation. This is in spite of direct opposition to the idea by the entire State Board of Education, especially by the State Superintendent of Schools, Mike Flanagan.

Here is the response one of the politician pushing for extending the school day gave regarding the opposition:

When asked about the state superintendent’s views ... Potvin said: “He hasn’t signed any checks lately for transportation,” apparently meaning the cost of school buses.

Forget that Rep. Potvin is putting money before learning (Lessenberry addresses this in his piece). I am more angry with how Rep. Potvin seems to believe his business experience trumps Superintendent Flanagan's educational perspective when it comes to running schools. It makes me want to scream.

But instead, I decided to use my words. Therefore, I wrote this post and used this meme to appropriately express my anger.

#TheAvengersTalkAboutTeaching

Ah, that's better. 

Will this be on the test?

Sure, I can be smug when it comes to assessment. In my defense, I have been considering different ways to assess learning for over twenty years. Much of this work has involved using alternative assessments, but I am not above using more traditional approaches, like tests, especially when they involve some twist. 

Because of the negative associations many students have with math tests, I try to make it clear that my tests are used to support learning. Each test is merely a benchmark that monitors our progress toward established learning goals. We use the results to determine what we can do and what needs more practice. Yes, at some point a grade gets put in the books, but there is no need to worry until that time comes.

That is what I tell them, but often this is what they hear:

In case you are unfamiliar with Game of Thrones, some context.

So, it's no surprise when I start hearing this (of course I add the last bit in my head):

I understand that this is a conditioned response. At some point it worked; it made it easier to decide what to memorize in order to get a good grade. However, I want learners to decide for themselves what's worth remembering and to consider ways to make that learning last beyond the test.

So here's how I want to respond from now on (turns out I'm smug and snarky - who knew?)

Does it make you more curious about the material?

Are you likely to try to learn more about the topic on your own?

Would you consider putting the ideas in a concept map in order to make connections?

Can you see yourself discussing the subject with others in order to talk your way to understanding?

Might you examine your thinking in light of the information and consider refining it?

In all seriousness, I recognize test-anxiety as a real issue among many of my students - an unintended consequence of high-stakes testing in the past. I hope my efforts at humor do not come across as flippant. My goal is to reframe "Will this be on the test?" as an opportunity to examine alternatives to the binge-and-purge approach to studying. Because if I am satisfied with learning that leaves instead of learning that lasts, then why even bother?

Y U no like math?

Last semester, I was fortunate to teach a class that brought together preservice and inservice math teachers in a combined undergraduate/graduate course. The graduate students mentored the undergrads in the areas of assessment, evaluation, and planning. In return, I gave the inservice teachers the freedom to use design thinking to explore any issue they were experiencing in their teaching. This post presents a portion of one of their projects.

Julia Moore is an adjunct at Grand Rapids Community College, and she gave me permission to share her work with you. One of the things she found in the research she read was that students' self-perception related to mathematics impacted their engagement in the subject. She wondered if she might influence these individual perceptions by addressing the intellectual struggle and emotional  feelings typically associated with doing mathematics. In order to tackle these perceptions, she asked students to use Internet memes to describe their relationship to math. They shared the memes in class: 

This is my favorite:

According to Julia, the most valuable part of this exercise was the discussion it started. She writes: 

The conversation had its foundation in humor, so the classroom environment was relaxed and free-flowing. ... They shared stories of:

• Struggles with mathematics or previous teachers
• Successful experiences with mathematics or previous teachers
• Frustration at learning something they may NEVER use again
• Being able to excel in their other classes, but haven't been able to transfer those skills into mathematical thinking

I wish I had TAPED IT!!!!

The discussion presented Julia with the opportunity to explain that everyone struggles in math; it's one's willingness to engage in the struggle that increases one's likelihood of success. She also highlighted where people encounter math in the world. Because of the safe space the original activity created, the students' were more open to this discussion and more engaged in later mathematical discussions.

She plans to add a second piece to this activity in the future. Students will create a new meme at the end of the semester that indicates some mathematical understanding they learned during the course. This is the example Julia shared: