Mr. Anand was Death to Math Enjoyment. He was a bright, personable, confident math teacher whose explanations were unintelligible to me. I couldn’t understand why I couldn’t

*get*it. Hating the daily trauma of not understanding what we were doing, I began to skip the class. Eventually, I fell so far behind that the most logical course of action seemed to be to drop the course and graduate from high school without it. Mr. Anand’s class had tipped me over from “good math student” to “math dropout.”

A decade later, I enrolled in community college to pick up that math course. My community college teacher? Mr. Anand. After a few more months with Mr. Anand, I was again completely lost. I took a trig exam thinking I would ace it, and instead, I flunked it. When the stock market crashed, I gratefully accepted that as an excuse to drop the course. I was 30 years old, working in finance, and I hadn’t passed high-school math.

A year later, I had married, moved and enrolled in college. The math requirement worried me. I felt deep in my bones that I was good at math, but my experiences with Mr. Anand had spawned many doubts. Thankfully, Mr. Anand had not made his way to Tennessee. College math was fun, interesting and logical. I still enjoy math, although I’m quite unenthusiastic about Mr. Anand.

I tell you this story because I’m aware of how much difference teachers make. Teachers hold the keys to the future; their interest and skill can make or break the learning process. But the teaching profession – one of the more challenging professions out there – is complicated by the lack of core content in many teacher education programs. I’ve heard and read repeatedly about programs that are woefully light in content, that focus too much on

*how*to teach and not enough on

*what*to teach. It’s a shame, because common sense and research tell us that teachers who know core subjects – math, science, languages, civics and history – are better able to teach them to their students (Stotsky, n.d.; “Teaching,” 2004; “U.S. Department,” 2005, p. 3; “Teaching,” 2006).

Some educators believe they can pick up a well-written textbook and effectively teach that material even if they don’t know it themselves. The prevalence of this theory helps explain why math is so often taught as a game in which children work in groups to teach math to themselves. But I doubt the theory does hold true for math. As I tutor our daughter in algebra and geometry, it’s clear that she won’t understand it if I don’t.

The sad state of K-12 math instruction appears to be intentional. In 1997, public policy organization Public Agenda found that, of 900 professors of education, 86% believed it was more important for aspiring teachers to “struggle with the process of finding the right answers than knowing the right answer” (“Professors,” 1997). Fifty-seven percent thought that children who used calculators from the beginning would have better problem-solving skills. Just 55% would require high-school graduates to demonstrate proficiency in “spelling, grammar, and punctuation.” Sixty percent wanted “less emphasis on memorization” in the classroom.

Fast-forward 11 years to 2008. A report from the National Council on Teacher Quality said that elementary-school teachers are now ill prepared to teach math to their students, having received insufficient instruction in math while they were in college (Zuckerbrod, 2008).

Folks, teachers have been betrayed too. They’re in the same shoes as their students. They can’t know things they haven’t been taught. If they don’t know it, they’ll struggle to teach it. Some would argue that last point with me, but just look around. The proof is right there in the generally weak math skills, sinking enrollments and high rates of dropouts and remediation.

Dr. Sandra Stotsky is a professor of Education Reform and holds the 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality at the University of Arkansas. She is also a member of the Massachusetts Board of Education, and was a member of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. She has said schools of education are “a major part of the problem,” not the solution (2005) and that they’re responsible for three critical issues facing public schools:

**Many teachers, especially those in K-8, have not gained an adequate academic background in the subject they’re supposed to teach in their professional preparation program.**

**Colleges and universities aren’t providing public schools with sufficient numbers of “academically qualified teachers” for core secondary school subjects.****“Education schools do not train prospective teachers how to teach.”**

Many teachers earn extra pay for master’s degrees, but Dr. Stotsky is critical of the typical master’s of education degree, calling it “an academically impoverished set of courses touting a body of ‘professional’ knowledge that has little, if any, support from credible research.” She says schools of education often disparage scientifically based evidence as “positivistic and irrelevant,” while rejecting scientific research that supports systematic and explicit instruction in reading, practicing skills, and providing “highly structured teaching” for at-risk children:

Speaking of development programs, it’s strange to me that people go to college, learn how to teach and then come out supposedly needing retraining in order to teach. Why would universities and colleges allow such a situation to continue? If teachers don’t know how to teach when they graduate from education programs, then either they need to stay there longer, or maybe there’s something wrong with the programs.

If I ran a university, and my school of education didn’t turn out teachers who were qualified to teach – without the constant need for coaching and retraining – I’d be embarrassed. If I ran a school district and had to keep retraining the people I hired – I’d be embarrassed. If I were a teacher, I’d be angry that I paid for a college education that didn’t adequately prepare me to go out and work. This is not an argument to fire a bunch of teachers; I’m following this thought through to its logical conclusion. If teachers who graduate from college need retraining, then something is awry.

Besides the fact that professional development is a lucrative business, it’s another sneaky way of blaming the teachers. It’s easier and more comfortable to say: “The math programs will work just fine once the teachers know how to teach it” than it is to acknowledge that the curriculum itself is inadequate and incomprehensible. Illogically, while teachers are away from class getting all of this retraining, their students are taught by substitute teachers who are not getting the retraining.

I’m truly surprised teachers haven’t yet filed a class-action lawsuit.

In March 2008, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel said teacher-education programs must focus more on traditional aspects of math such as whole numbers, fractions, geometry, measurement and algebra (“Foundations,” 2008, p. xviii). The Panel said teachers need to know mathematics in order to teach it better, and so the “mathematics preparation of elementary and middle school teachers must be strengthened as one means for improving teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom” (p. 39).

(It’s hard to believe the NMAP had to *say* that.)

Can we ever expect professors currently in the colleges of education to step back and say, “Gee, maybe we were wrong”? Most of them taught reform, promoted it, fought for it, received grant money for it and published material on it. It takes a big person to admit an error, especially one this costly in children’s futures. I expect most of them to support reform until they die.

Parents could grow old and gray waiting for teacher education programs to acknowledge the obvious. Find out what your children need to know for post-secondary life and fill in the gaps. Students shouldn’t have to wait until they’re 30 to get the math they need for the life they want.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:

Rogers, L. (February, 2009). "Teacher education programs big part of the problem." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was posted February 9, 2009 at Educationnews.org, at http://ednews.org/articles/33695/1/Teacher-Education-Programs-Part-of-the-Problem/Page1.html

## 8 comments:

What the parent's movement lacks is focus. First, change the curriculum. If schools taught one curriculum, teacher programs would know how to prepare teachers and schools would not be as dependent on local colleges for graduating new teachers.

If districts adopt Core Plus then teacher programs have to train teachers with Core Plus.

Actually, with MSPs the reality is reversed. Nationally, there are 53. Districts that are members must adopt the curriculum in order to receive support.

An MSP (sponsored by a teacher education college) provides staff training only if the district adopts the DOE's approved curriculum. The reason you have Core Plus at all in Washington

(16% district usage) is due to MSP leverage.

If you examine each of their alternative programs carefully, you will probably see a large turnover of students, low graduation rates (below 10%), and a district nearby serving as a catch-all for the school refugees.

This is an excellent article and you have certainly captured the heart of the real problem with math education-- and education in general--in America today. Whether one is talking of Washington DC, Washington State or Washington County, Florida, what you have written is true. Students have been betrayed by their teachers and the teachers have been betrayed by their schools of education. Those schools of education have been led astray by many wealthy not-for-profit foundations which reward them with grants,and then they in turn spread their confusion and lies via seed money for k-12 schools. NSF, Dana, Gates do this on a huge scale.

Hey it's terrible all over. Since Goals 2000 we poor teachers have been subjected to training in more bogus methods sold to schools by more snake-oil salesmen than you can imagine... to the detriment of children everywhere.

We were told do not teach spelling, phonics, number facts, do not employ practice, the works.. it sucked and I quit because of it.

The study that came out in 2008 on teacher quality, called "No Common Denominator" can be accessed here:

http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_ttmath_fullreport_20080626115953.pdf

It is the most comprehensive study I have seen yet, on how elementary school teachers are educated and certified to teach.

I recently had the opportunity to visit a small catholic school in India. They hire only graduates in Math and Science, along with a post-graduate degree in Education, to teach kids from 3rd grade onwards. High school teachers are required to have a minimum of a master's degree in their field of expertise (For example, a high school math teacher is required to have at least a master's degree in math, and a post graduate degree in education). They are a private school, but their tuition is about $25 per month, along with a $300 one time fee, hence affordable to most middle income people. The contrast is student achievement was striking. Their first 10th grade graduates had a 100% pass rate in the national 10th grade exit exam. Not only that, 85% of those who passed did so at the highest level of achievement (somewhat like getting straight A's)

I read in a book that during the turn of the century, doctors were not required to have any undergraduate training. After many medical mishaps, the powers that be decided to make a doctor's diploma a post-graduate degree. That returned the profession to some level of credibility. We may need to insist the same for teachers.

There are two avenues for Math and Science Partnerships. One through the U.S. Dept. of Ed. and the other through NSF. I don't believe that either are supposed to require mediocre math programs, although that may be happening.

If you know of specific instances where funds that were intended to improve teacher's mathematical preparedness are being used to promote ineffective and incoherent curricula, please contact your state representatives, as well as the Inspector Generals of the US Dept of Education and NSF.

It's a terrible misuse of public funds that takes advantage of our trust and betrays our children.

There are 53 Math Science Partnerships in the US. The MSP in Oregon is PRISM (partners are the Dana Center and Achieve, Inc) the same organizations involved in Washington's reform movement.

The MSP in Washington State is NCOSP directed by the former director of the AAAS, a major political force in this farsical reform saga.

Yes, the NSF grants stipulate that schools who participate have to adopt reform curriculum. In that sense, the curriculum is imposed.

What you have are mostly two reform movements tied to one funding source.

One of the players is a new generation of nonprofits spun out of the Coalition of Essential Schools movement (Ted Sizer) that promote structural reform through standards-based instruction.

The other major player is the reform curriculum movement (NCTM leadership) that is promoting higher standards for teachers and replacing traditional pedagogy with technological remedies (mostly computer assisted instruction eg. carnegie learning, novanet, Plato).

Pull the plug on the NSF-EHR and you will reduce this group to the status of beggars.

You write the following:

"Can we ever expect professors currently in the colleges of education to step back and say, “Gee, maybe we were wrong”? Most of them taught reform, promoted it, fought for it, received grant money for it and published material on it. It takes a big person to admit an error, especially one this costly in children’s futures. I expect most of them to support reform until they die."

This is because ideology is more important than results. You are right. They will not change their minds because they will not admit they are wrong because their ideology is more important than truth.

Standards based instruction is a fool's game - teachers are limiting themselves by teaching one standard at a time. The concern should be foremost literacy and then blending ideas together. So fewer problems with more big ideas.

A good example is blending geometric and algebraic ideas to teach the Pythagorean theorem.

A right triangle on a rectangle so students have to find the length of the base in order to find the area of both shapes.

Mixing fractions and square roots of numbers rather than using whole numbers only.

Frequently my only written directions are: Solve for x, Find the slope.

We did a similiar triangle problem today to find the length of a shared side - this results in taking the square roots of both sides to find the correct answer. CPM does this problem in algebra 1, but I don't believe Holt teaches it until near the final chapter. Reform math doesn't teach it all as far as I know.

This is a ninth grade second semester extended algebra (2 year) course and almost 100% Latino.

Post a Comment