The Latest from Math Teacher Extraordinaire, Barry Garelick
Chapter 3 of “Out on Good Behavior”.
Barry Garelick gives us a final chapter for now as he explains why he cannot continue the series at present. He is a middle school math teacher who is being monitored by a mentor under California’s credentialing requirements. The first two installments can be found here: https://wisemathbc.blogspot.com/2017/11/latest-chapter-from-barry-garelick-math.html?spref=fb and https://wisemathbc.blogspot.com/2017/12/latest-from-barry-garelicks-book.html?spref=fb
3. Saying the same things, not knowing, and a frank discussion.
With the best of intentions, I started writing what I thought would be episodes that represented my current experience teaching. But in doing so, I realized I was only able to write about the latest version of “now” despite attempts to provide a more encompassing view. In short, it felt like I was assembling a plane while flying it.
I have therefore decided to hold off until the school year is finished. But not before I recount a recent visit with my current parole officer (who I have called Diane, per Chapter 1). To put the visit in perspective, I point out that when I talk with people whose educational philosophies oppose mine, they will try to seek common ground by saying one or both of the following: “I think we’re both saying the same thing” (Though we’re generally not), and 2) “Well, we just don’t know” (Though we generally do).
Diane and I had fallen into a common ground kind of existence. The few disagreements we had included what constitutes “critical thinking”, as well as the role of understanding versus procedures in teaching math. (I’ll write about those at a later date, I promise you!) Recently, after we finished a session in which I answered vague questions about what goals I had for my 7th grade class, and provided even vaguer descriptions of how I would fulfill those goals, she asked her usual final wrap-up question: “Anything else you want to talk about?”
A few weeks prior to this, I had finished an online course on curriculum development. I had to have nine hours of professional development required as part of the parole/credentialing so the online course helped me fulfill that. One thing that bothered me about the course was the relationship between educational standards and curricula. Specifically, whether and to what extent should teachers be given leeway in interpreting the standards from which curricula follow? This was on my mind when Diane asked if I had anything else I wanted to talk about. I asked her the following question:
“What happens when a school district makes decisions on curriculum and methods of teaching based on a misinterpretation of the overarching standards from which the curriculum proceeds?”
“What do you mean?” she asked.
“Well, a few years ago when I was doing my long-term sub assignment for a semester it was during a transition year. Common Core was going into effect the next year. I saw that the Common Core standards were given a rather one-sided interpretation.” (This was a school in a neighboring school district. I describe it in further detail in my book “Confessions of a 21st Century Math Teacher).
I recounted how during staff meetings we were told "Next year when Common Core is implemented there will be no more teacher at the front of the room saying turn to page such and such, and do the following problems.”
“First of all,” I said, “Common Core is on record saying that it does not dictate pedagogy. So how is it that a curriculum then dictates that teachers must facilitate and not teach?”
She looked like someone who was about to calm down a person going berserk.
“Sometimes districts have to issue edicts like that because they have little control over how teachers teach,” she said. “In fact—I shouldn't say this—but a lot of teachers are horrible so they have to institute controls.”
I was about to ask if I was one of the horrible teachers. Instead I said, “It appears that the school district adheres to constructivist principles, since they use the Danielson Framework to evaluate candidates for teaching jobs. The Danielson website even says that they adhere to constructivist principles. So in other words, no traditionalists need apply for jobs in that district.”
My mouth was dry and my heart was pounding but there was no stopping me.
“And the Superintendent's philosophy as stated on his web page aligns with the constructivist philosophy. He even says that in the age of Google, we don’t need to spend so much time on "low level" learning, but more on ‘learning how to learn’.”
Diane smiled. “Well there are digital devices available now that weren’t in the past.”
“You’re not going to learn calculus by Googling, are you?” I asked.
“No.”
“I teach in a traditional style and I get good results,” I said. “They don’t tell me how to teach at this school. They see my results and they leave me alone. I don’t see the advantage in mandating something that isn’t in the Common Core standards and saying that it is.”
“What you say is true,” she said. “But there are some teachers who do not know how to get kids to construct their own knowledge.”
"You can still construct your own knowledge from direct instruction and have 'aha' moments."
"Of course you can," she said. "I think you and I have talked about our differences in the beginning and we have found some common ground from which to proceed."
I said nothing.
"I happen to like the Superintendent of that district and how they do things and one can't deny that the schools in that district are doing well."
"Yes, they are,” I said. “Many of the students are getting outside help from tutors or learning centers, of which there are several in the area. So is the effectiveness due to how the schools are teaching or because of the tutors, who by the way teach in a traditional manner?"
She smiled and said in a calm voice "We just don't know."
That’s right,” I said. “We don’t. And just so you know, as a teacher, I find the Superintendent’s stated philosophy extremely offensive.”
“OK,” she said.
I should mention here that despite our basic disagreements, I like Diane. But as she packed up her computer and entered our next meeting date on her smartphone, it was hard for me to tell what she might have been thinking. Maybe she was convincing herself that we were both saying the same things. In any event, I felt as if I had crossed a line.
It’s OK for friends to disagree, I told myself. But not everyone is my friend, I decided.
Barry Garelick gives us a final chapter for now as he explains why he cannot continue the series at present. He is a middle school math teacher who is being monitored by a mentor under California’s credentialing requirements. The first two installments can be found here: https://wisemathbc.blogspot.com/2017/11/latest-chapter-from-barry-garelick-math.html?spref=fb and https://wisemathbc.blogspot.com/2017/12/latest-from-barry-garelicks-book.html?spref=fb
3. Saying the same things, not knowing, and a frank discussion.
With the best of intentions, I started writing what I thought would be episodes that represented my current experience teaching. But in doing so, I realized I was only able to write about the latest version of “now” despite attempts to provide a more encompassing view. In short, it felt like I was assembling a plane while flying it.
I have therefore decided to hold off until the school year is finished. But not before I recount a recent visit with my current parole officer (who I have called Diane, per Chapter 1). To put the visit in perspective, I point out that when I talk with people whose educational philosophies oppose mine, they will try to seek common ground by saying one or both of the following: “I think we’re both saying the same thing” (Though we’re generally not), and 2) “Well, we just don’t know” (Though we generally do).
Diane and I had fallen into a common ground kind of existence. The few disagreements we had included what constitutes “critical thinking”, as well as the role of understanding versus procedures in teaching math. (I’ll write about those at a later date, I promise you!) Recently, after we finished a session in which I answered vague questions about what goals I had for my 7th grade class, and provided even vaguer descriptions of how I would fulfill those goals, she asked her usual final wrap-up question: “Anything else you want to talk about?”
A few weeks prior to this, I had finished an online course on curriculum development. I had to have nine hours of professional development required as part of the parole/credentialing so the online course helped me fulfill that. One thing that bothered me about the course was the relationship between educational standards and curricula. Specifically, whether and to what extent should teachers be given leeway in interpreting the standards from which curricula follow? This was on my mind when Diane asked if I had anything else I wanted to talk about. I asked her the following question:
“What happens when a school district makes decisions on curriculum and methods of teaching based on a misinterpretation of the overarching standards from which the curriculum proceeds?”
“What do you mean?” she asked.
“Well, a few years ago when I was doing my long-term sub assignment for a semester it was during a transition year. Common Core was going into effect the next year. I saw that the Common Core standards were given a rather one-sided interpretation.” (This was a school in a neighboring school district. I describe it in further detail in my book “Confessions of a 21st Century Math Teacher).
I recounted how during staff meetings we were told "Next year when Common Core is implemented there will be no more teacher at the front of the room saying turn to page such and such, and do the following problems.”
“First of all,” I said, “Common Core is on record saying that it does not dictate pedagogy. So how is it that a curriculum then dictates that teachers must facilitate and not teach?”
She looked like someone who was about to calm down a person going berserk.
“Sometimes districts have to issue edicts like that because they have little control over how teachers teach,” she said. “In fact—I shouldn't say this—but a lot of teachers are horrible so they have to institute controls.”
I was about to ask if I was one of the horrible teachers. Instead I said, “It appears that the school district adheres to constructivist principles, since they use the Danielson Framework to evaluate candidates for teaching jobs. The Danielson website even says that they adhere to constructivist principles. So in other words, no traditionalists need apply for jobs in that district.”
My mouth was dry and my heart was pounding but there was no stopping me.
“And the Superintendent's philosophy as stated on his web page aligns with the constructivist philosophy. He even says that in the age of Google, we don’t need to spend so much time on "low level" learning, but more on ‘learning how to learn’.”
Diane smiled. “Well there are digital devices available now that weren’t in the past.”
“You’re not going to learn calculus by Googling, are you?” I asked.
“No.”
“I teach in a traditional style and I get good results,” I said. “They don’t tell me how to teach at this school. They see my results and they leave me alone. I don’t see the advantage in mandating something that isn’t in the Common Core standards and saying that it is.”
“What you say is true,” she said. “But there are some teachers who do not know how to get kids to construct their own knowledge.”
"You can still construct your own knowledge from direct instruction and have 'aha' moments."
"Of course you can," she said. "I think you and I have talked about our differences in the beginning and we have found some common ground from which to proceed."
I said nothing.
"I happen to like the Superintendent of that district and how they do things and one can't deny that the schools in that district are doing well."
"Yes, they are,” I said. “Many of the students are getting outside help from tutors or learning centers, of which there are several in the area. So is the effectiveness due to how the schools are teaching or because of the tutors, who by the way teach in a traditional manner?"
She smiled and said in a calm voice "We just don't know."
That’s right,” I said. “We don’t. And just so you know, as a teacher, I find the Superintendent’s stated philosophy extremely offensive.”
“OK,” she said.
I should mention here that despite our basic disagreements, I like Diane. But as she packed up her computer and entered our next meeting date on her smartphone, it was hard for me to tell what she might have been thinking. Maybe she was convincing herself that we were both saying the same things. In any event, I felt as if I had crossed a line.
It’s OK for friends to disagree, I told myself. But not everyone is my friend, I decided.
Comments
Post a Comment