math follow up

Last week I posted about math and rigor; if you missed it, here yah go. When I shared this post on Instagram, I accidentally opened a couple of cans of worms. FUN! 

First, some folks were not happy that I called out TGTB’s math curriculum as being problematic. Folks are welcome to their opinions and I genuinely do think that if a program is working well for you, then great! That said, I still find TGTB’s math curriculum problematic for many families. It is an inch deep and a mile wide. My experience in homeschool consulting has shown that many children appear to be learning the content but then quickly forget it and/or have a limited foundation on the topic to build upon. BUT — me just telling you my opinion is well, an opinion. So, I ran a poll on Instagram to collect some data. Yes, the survey results are pretty small, but they speak for themselves. 

Secondly, I quoted Jo Boaler and referenced her work in Mathematical Mindsets. I read this book several years ago and found it helpful. However, I did not realize that Jo Boaler and her work are incredibly controversial in the math world. Jo Boaler is to math what Lucy Calkins is to reading, and her work doesn’t really jive with the science of learning or the quickly growing science of math community. I’m still diving into this rabbit hole and will share what I learn as I go.

Basically, it boils down to this: kids need a deep conceptual understanding of math AND fact fluency. Some programs move too quickly, and kids don’t develop that deep conceptual understanding. This often doesn’t show until several years in when you go to build on that knowledge/understanding you had hoped was there, only to find it is not. Furthermore, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel report acknowledges that fact memorization is important, so focusing on math in the way Boaler describes without also including fact fluency does not benefit students.

As for Jo Boaler, I am not going to dive into that whole can of worms here. However, I do think this blurb from Daniel Willingham is telling: 

We think it’s inaccurate to suggest that “A number of different studies have shown that when students are given the freedom to think in ways that make sense to them, learning disabilities are no longer a barrier to. Yet many teachers have not been trained to teach in this way.”  We have no desire to argue for student limitations and absolutely agree with Boaler and Lamar’s call for educators to applaud student achievement, to set high expectations, and to express (realistic) confidence that students can reach them. But it’s inaccurate to suggest that with the “right teaching,” learning disabilities in math would greatly diminish or even vanish. For some students, difficulties persist despite excellent education.  We don’t know which article Boaler & Lamar meant to link to in support of this point—the one linked to concerns different methods of research for typical students vs students identified with a disability.

If you are interested in learning more about the science of math, check out these resources:

• The Science of Math

• Chalk & Talk Ep. 15 Modern Relevance in the Math Curriculum with Brian Conrad

• Progressively Incorrect S3 Ep 2: Amanda VanDerHeyden on the Math Wars and MTSS 

• Progressively Incorrect S2 Ep 6: Dan Willingham on Applying Cognitive Science to K12 Education

• Direct Instruction Podcast

• Arithmetic for Parents: A Book for Grown-Ups About Children’s Mathematics

• Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally