The failure of a collaborative model
Virginie Delwart
Thinking Classroom Mathematics is a struggle. The new way of teaching mathematics is creating a divide in my household and our community. I have two children at Governor Livingston. While my oldest is doing fine, my youngest is struggling. Discussing with a friend whose kids are at GL, I see the same issues. Coming back from the Thinking Classroom meeting at Governor Livingston, obviously, we are not alone.
The model is interesting. Developing a critical mindset, thinking, and developing strategies instead of applying formulas is excellent. “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime”, one said. Fabulous! In the Governor Livingston High School classes, this new model is causing difficulties. Straight “A” Math students are now failing. Parents must hire tutors to get their kids the support and education the school is supposed to provide. Those who cannot afford that are left with “have your kids talk to me in class” or “have your kids sign up for remediation with honor students.” Well, guess what… Anecdotally, I learned that some of the Honor Society kids who are supposed to remediate our “struggling kids” also fail in math…You got to believe this!
I walked out from the conference with the following task: “Talk to your kids and reach out to the teachers.” I did the first part. Here is what I have learned:
- They begin the lessons with tasks in groups and are put in groups of 2-3 or 4 to collaborate on problem-solving. The groups are random to promote connection and different thinking. The reality is that friends are changing their “group cards” to be with their friends, hence trumping the randomization and the opportunity to work with someone they have not yet had the chance to be with. Some kids are silenced in their group. When they ask questions because of their struggle, some other students are simply telling them to “S*** up (excuse my French); you are just stupid.” What a lovely collaborative model!
- Students work to solve the problem by themselves. The model uses oral hints to support kids’ learning and autonomy. My child’s experience is very different. She does not always understand what they should do, and feels unequipped to solve the problems. When I probed about the support received, I got, “The teacher’s comments are ‘What? You cannot solve this problem?’” or they don’t get an answer. I questioned my other kid. He told me he likes it but has a good teacher (ditto). I am questioning how teachers are trained on the model overall, on how to provide hints and motivate students to think differently. It seems to be random, the draw of luck, and missing the point of motivating.
- Checking the kid’s understanding and consolidating the learning is the last step of the model. From the insight I gathered, my kid does not see this happening enough in class. She feels lost and unsure about what she must retain and learn to move forward. I am not 100% certain this builds confidence, autonomy, and a solid understanding of the mathematical concepts and content. Some kids need to sit at their desk and do it the “old fashion way” for a moment. Some kids need a step in between and get direct “yes, you are right, or no, you are not.” Some kids still need reassurance. That should be totally fine, as they all have different learning styles. Why not provide it?
- Some teachers offer the class to retake the tests while others don’t. This creates a real discrimination. If you are lucky, you will have the chance to improve your grades. If you are not, too bad… Suck it up and get your tutor on zoom ASAP (again, if you can afford it).
In addition to listening to my kids, I also listened to the parents in our district. I was stunned by the information I heard.
Peter Liljedahl stated that he “wanted to build, what I now call, a thinking classroom – “a classroom that is not only conducive to thinking but also occasions thinking, a space that is inhabited by thinking individuals as well as individuals thinking collectively, learning together, and constructing knowledge and understanding through activity and discussion” (Liljedahl, 2016a, p.364). As we implement this model in our schools, the Math Supervisor and the administration should definitely implement this collaborative thinking model with parents.
Tonight, the presentation was one-way and solely focused on the positive aspects and feedback on the model. The parents were only allowed to ask questions via an online form. The Math Supervisor reviewed these questions, and only answered a few. When a parent raised her hand to ask a question, it was denied. Only online questions were allowed. There was a strong reaction from the assembly. Parents expressed their frustration. Their concerned were not heard. Their questions were not answered and above all, we were not allowed to think collectively about how to make this Thinking Classroom a success.
I believe the Thinking Classroom model is a good concept. Taught well and in a way that indeed develops the confidence to learn would be wonderful. It seems, though, that the model is implemented without consideration for the kids who struggle.
All I can think of is the damage it will cause. Psychologically and emotionally, for the children whose needs are not met, for whom this model is an issue. The enormous potential gaps in mathematics this situation will generate down the line and the fracture it will cause again between families and the district. Like we need another “redistricting scenario”… Berkeley Heights Public Schools…please work with us, parents, and children to make this a thinking success.
Related Articles:
BEYOND STANDARDIZED TESTS AND METRICS
ONE MORE REALLY LONG ARTICLE ABOUT PROFICIENCIES AND METRICS
SLIDING GRADES AND PROFICIENCIES
6 thoughts on “Thinking Classroom or Sinking Classroom”