Will the “New”, New Approach to Math Improve Proficiency or Increase Frustration?
The Berkeley Heights School District held a parent information session on our new math program last Thursday, August 29th, in the Columbia Middle School cafeteria. As with the presentation that was held at Governor Livingston High School a few years back, the room held a surprising number of residents. Given the turnout, it would seem that our math program is of continued concern for parents. This time around, the presentation was given by new STEAM Director Kelly Curtiss, and Shelly Daun, Director and consultant from First Educational Resources in Wisconsin.
Ms. Daun began by giving her experience and credentials, then let parents know that teachers had attended a Professional Development session with her earlier that day. She then provided a slideshow that outlined the basis of the program which is being provided to our District’s teachers and through them, our students. The first slide was labeled “Shifts in Math”. Ms. Daun shared that only approximately a quarter of students in the U.S. are proficient in math as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The main take-away was that students in a “forward-facing” classroom (a traditional classroom) didn’t learn at a ‘deep level’. With these words, I was immediately taken back to the GL presentation, where we were told that some 80% or more of students aren’t learning during traditional classes. The next slide felt even more familiar, and brought a slight feeling of… dread? disappointment?
That slide was “Key Instructional Strategies”. There was a diagram showing the outline of a class period which began with ‘Mini Lesson’ and ‘Core Block’, followed by ‘Small Group’ and ‘Closure’. The accompanying verbal presentation by Ms. Daun explained how we want students to be able to think, take risks and talk critically about math. She posed the question of what productive struggle looks like, versus unproductive. She said the data tells us the traditional method of teaching math doesn’t work and that having students come up with their own methods for solving problems leads them to better understanding. Next up was a slide comparing a word problem with a practice sheet on equivalent fractions. She explained that while a student may be able to come up with an idea of how to solve the word problem, if they didn’t understand the fractions there was no way for them to intuit a solution.
There was an example of this shown in a video following the slides, in a classroom with what appeared to be kids in roughly 5th or 6th grade. The teacher had drawn two tables on the whiteboard. The first held three pizzas and had ten chairs surrounding it. The second had two pizzas and eight chairs. Students were asked to think about which table they would want to sit at if they wanted more pizza. The students were shown seated in groups of three or four, working on their individual strategies for how to solve the problem. The teacher then joined them to look over how each had approached the problem and discuss those methods. The video was cut off at the point where, after the first two students shared their solutions, a third student admitted they really had no idea how to go about finding the answer. I understand there was a time constraint, but I would have been interested in seeing how that was handled.
At this point, I must admit I was channeling Shakespeare – “What is in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet”. At the same time, I was trying to remain positive and keep an open mind for the remainder of the session. Ms. Daun assured us that this method “DOES work, and it IS the best”. Dr. Curtiss spoke about this program NOT being Building the Thinking Classroom. She said that there absolutely would be instruction given by the teachers and that they would not leave students on their own. She expressed the importance of not letting our student’s frustrations “get to that level”, but to keep open communication with teachers.
And with that, we’re at a point where the elephant in the room must be discussed if we’re to move forward successfully with this program. Dr. Curtiss admitted the rollout of Building the Thinking Classroom (which happened prior to her arrival) was not good. She said that teachers were given a book and told to implement the method. This time, teachers received a single day of professional development on this model. The next time they will have a professional development day for this, specifically, is February 14th, 2025. They will be encouraged to collaborate with each other if they find something is not working in their own classroom.
Those of us whose children have been in a Thinking Classroom for a couple years may have seen how this method of ‘instruction’ could be done well by one teacher, and completely botched by another. I have tremendous concern that the same teachers who didn’t understand how to utilize Building the Thinking Classroom’s principles will not suddenly be able to implement this “Different Rose” program with a one-day workshop and instructions to work with other teachers if having a problem. Ironically, this feels like teachers are being given their own version of Thinking Classroom: here’s the idea, figure out what works best for you. Some will do well. Some will flounder. We’ve seen it. We’ve lived it with our children.
I’m unconvinced but am holding out a small bit of hope. Dr. Curtiss has been far more open to dialog than what we’ve experienced previously. She has indicated that it is important for kids to receive direct (explicit) instruction. She has acknowledged, via the question-and-answer period following the presentation, parent concerns and did not seem to be sweeping them aside. There is positive research showing engaging students more directly in their learning is beneficial, if done well. I believe Dr. Curtiss has the background to know what “done well” looks like. One way, or the other, we’re about to find out whether the implementation can match the promise.
