Progressive vs. Traditional – Who’s right, who’s wrong (12-17-08)

There I was, sitting in the kitchen at an antique wooden table staring at a giant page of numbers. Rows and columns filled with digits jumped off the paper, screaming at me where only an hour ago my mother’s turkey loaf had done the same. The multiplication table was my nemesis (no different then the turkey loaf). I don’t remember what grade I was in or who my teacher was, but the sound of my father’s voice reaming into me about how important it was to master this matrix of data from one through twelve still resonates in my head. As the family embarked into the living room to watch one of the classic Star Wars films on the latest and greatest technology, laser discs, I was stuck at that antique wooden table, staring at numbers and for the one and only time in my life, wishing it was the turkey loaf instead.

School didn’t have to make sure I mastered my multiplication fluency, my family did. In fact, there are a lot of things school didn’t have to do for me.

Here are just a few examples

• How to act around professionals: My father always had business colleagues over at the house.
• How to advocate and negotiate: I learned this through compromising with my mom from an early age.
• How to speak using professional language: It’s all I heard from birth through adulthood.
• How to persevere in difficult situations: That’s all I saw. No one around me ever folded growing up. There was no task that couldn’t be accomplished. From starting companies to getting patents approved…anything and everything was possible.

Now let’s go back to that pesky multiplication table. My personal experience strikes at the heart of the national debate between progressive and traditional math instruction. The reality is that not all students from the multitude of backgrounds that we teach need the same thing. In fact, providing them with the same instruction is a complete disservice. To argue for Saxon math (the most traditional drill and kill curriculum I’ve ever seen) or Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP – the most inquiry, discovery based curriculum available) is a ludicrous notion if the students that the curriculum is going to serve aren’t taken into consideration.

The bottom line…I don’t think it mattered what curriculum my math teachers used during my middle and high school years. Regardless, I was going to have my math fluency down…not much of a choice when your father is an engineer. However, when I consider the students that I’m teaching, impoverished minority adolescents entering 9^th grade with only 8 % demonstrating grade level proficiency, it’s clear that my fate as a numerically literate individual is not the same for the clients I serve unless our school does what my family and my school were able to do for me.

It’s no secret that every “beat the odds” school I’ve visited across Colorado and the country uses direct instruction as their primary means of delivering information. Their thinking…we have way too much to cover because we’re already two to three years behind. There is no choice but for the teacher to own the content and for the students to sponge it up. As a result, you don’t see collaborative groups working through open ended projects at their own pace. You don’t see spiraling curriculums in place where the teacher moves on even though the majority of the class hasn’t shown mastery because they know that the topic will come back sometime before the end of the year or maybe next year. In fact, what you see is the opposite. A consistent push for mastery of specific learning outcomes that are the foundation of mathematics understanding.

Coming out of college all I could think about was getting students to see relevance in their mathematics and engaging them in exciting, dynamic learning experiences. I wanted them to discover the big ideas of mathematics with my facilitation, but I didn’t want to force or rush it. I taught with little to no urgency. In contrast, the schools that are preparing our most under serviced youth in this nation, poor, minority students, for college and beyond teach as though every minute was a last breath in an effort to resuscitate a drowning victim. These schools recognize the Lisa Delpit perspective that so cautions us of worrying so much about engaging and encouraging our “behind grade level” students that we fail to teach them the rules of the game.

Her argument is framed around writing and literacy, but its message resonates in the world of math education just the same. If all we worry about is engaging our students in mathematics thinking and we fail to teach them function-notation or the various ways to write a ratio then we are not preparing them for life. There is a way the game of life is played and grammar, punctuation and sentence structure all play a role. Just because a student is able to organize some creative thoughts on a piece of paper doesn’t mean we’ve gotten them ready to compete. Those thoughts need to be presented with a commanding understanding of formal English language if we want them to be taken seriously and accepted when they enter the global economic workplace. Math is no different.

We can’t simply pat our students on the back for finding a pattern in a sequence of numbers. They need to be able to use the professional terms associated with such mathematics. I found the “recursive routine” and the “starting value” is ________ and the “rule’ that gets you to the next “term” is ___________. Students need to engage in the fundamentals and formalize their understanding using the same mathematics language that will be presented to them when they enter college. If we want them to become successful college students then we have to treat them as such from early on. This includes not only our interactions with them, but the way in which we deliver content and what we deem as acceptable mastery before moving on to the next piece of content.

In the end, the debate between progressive and traditional math instruction is one that we all know the answer to, we’re just not talking about it. Picture it as a possible 100 % combination. Meaning, in a perfectly balanced classroom we would see 50 % of one mixed with 50 % of the other. In my case, having been pounded with “math facts” from an early age I would have thrived regardless of the ratio, but it’s clear that a progressive leaning combination might have served me better, say a 70 % progressive/30 % traditional ratio. On the other side of the spectrum, if my students are provided with the same 70/30 split then it is unlikely they would ever really catch up and be able to compete with their middle and upper class counterparts. An ideal ratio for my 6^th and 7^th grade 9^th graders would be the inverse, a 70 % traditional/30 % progressive ratio. As I emphasized earlier, not every child needs the same education and to provide them with the same, even at a high quality, would be doing a great disservice.

There is no singular solution to this national debate between Progressive and Traditional math instruction practices. Both have a place in the American classroom. However, both can’t have the same amount of weight in different classrooms serving different students. We must look at who is producing results, for which students and with what practices. The Avon, Connecticut’s and Cherry Creek, Colorado’s of our nation will most likely prosper regardless of curricular and instructional practices decisions. The same can not be said about the Newark, New Jersey’s and Oakland, California’s. Education reform in the world of schools and math must consider the assets and deficiencies of the clients they are serving if they are to be truly effective.

As the “beat the odds” schools in our country are living and dying by the motto “every minute counts” so too must our push for delivering appropriate and necessary math instruction to our under serviced students. It’s not ok to simply engage in mathematical thinking and to share ideas. It’s a great start, but it doesn’t get kids who are four and five grade levels behind to catch up. If our philosophies clash with our realities then we must waive “bye-bye” to philosophy and “hello” to reality. Results are the only thing that matters and instead of thinking like education reformers lets think more like venture capitalist. What’s the bottom line?

Two weeks till break…two years till radical change (12-7-08)

I’m currently reading a book titled “No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning,” and I can’t help but feel that I should be using the title as a guiding motto for the next two years of my life. In this upcoming week I have two important meetings scheduled, one with the Colorado League of Charter Schools and the other with a representative from Get Smart Schools. I’m hopeful that both organizations will play pivotal supporting roles as I look to open an ECE – 8^th grade public charter school housed right in the Manual Facility. The school opening date is fall 2010. From this point until that date I would like to follow the no excuse life model.

There are so many reasons why the school won’t open on its scheduled date. Whether it’s the fact that I have no expertise in early childhood education or that I just had my 27^th birthday two days ago, or that I’ve never done any fundraising in the private sector; it’s easy to see the shortcomings I bring to the table. However, I’m going to acknowledge all the possible deficits that I have, do whatever I can to fix them by either improving myself or recruiting human capital, and move forward. There are “no excuses” for why this school won’t open on time and do exactly what it says it’s going to do. Eliminate the achievement gap and prepare impoverished minority students to compete with their middle and upper class counter parts.

As the text I’m reading states, “indifference to minority children who arrive in kindergarten already behind and continue to flounder is no longer an option for schools.” (Thernstrom 3) It’s no longer an option for our communities and it’s no longer an option for our country. I am frustrated, to put it nicely, with the students who walk into my 9^th grade classroom three and four grade levels behind their peers. I think about my own peer group, law school graduates, commodities and insurance salesmen, bankers, accountants, small business owners, and I can’t help but think about whether my students can compete with them. Do they have the academic, social and cultural capital necessary to thrive in our competitive country? Simply stated…no. That’s not to say they’re not able to develop these assets or that they have less innate ability then my friends did at their age, I simply mean that should the school not ensure the attainment of these assets then the students chances of success in our global economy are dire.

For those wondering how I define success I will put it in non-financial terms and simply define it as the ability to do whatever you want in this world without being held back by your deficits. When I think about the quality of some of my students writing and what a cover letter on a job application would look like I quickly see a deficit that could hold them back from achievement. When I say good morning to a student and put out my hand only to receive a barely audible voice in response with a weak hand shake and no eye contact I once again see a deficit that could stop one of our students from getting what they want in this world.

As the “beat the odds” schools are proving and as all research that I’ve been reading states…we must develop the human capital of our students which includes everything from writing engaging, organized and grammatically correct text to shaking a persons hand, looking them in the eye and confidently saying “good morning.” This is the backbone of inner-city academic institutions that are changing the odds for our most underserved student population and this will be the back bone of Make it Happen Academy, an ECE – 8^th grade charter school that will open in fall of 2010 and will ensure that minority students living in poverty can and will compete with my peer group. There are “no excuses.”