Teachers as Resource … Teachers as Problem

Once in a while (more often than you would know from posts here), I read something about education that shows how poorly some people outside of teaching understand what we do, and how we develop.  Today, I read a post on an effort (New Jersey) to remove  ‘bad teachers’ … based in part on standardized test scores.  I have posted about the value-added models that use standardized test scores; if you want to see a critique of value-added models from a mathematician’s viewpoint, see http://www.ams.org/notices/201105/rtx110500667p.pdf .

The article is at Test scores add value to teacher review, which is a blog post.  (I realize that one should be skeptical about the voracity of anything posted on a blog … you never know :).)  We could get distracted by the value-added component, and miss the more central error in such efforts:

Most good teachers were bad teachers at one time.

Personally, I began teaching (like most of us) with good training but bad real preparation.  How can a teacher be prepared to be a good teacher in the first two or three years?  I believe that some people have such an unusual background that they are actually good teachers from the first day; I believe that this is not a reasonable expectation for the group of all new teachers, regardless of the particulars in their training.  Yes, we can improve preparation of teachers at all levels — even college teaching.  Yes, we should have high expectations of teachers … with commensurate high rewards.

At the college level, our ‘standardized measure’ of outcomes is the set of grades we assign to students.  If we analyze these at the level of a specific college, the grade measurements are likely to be valid and reliable enough that some meaningful analysis is possible, always supplemented by insight and wisdom.  At the level of an individual instructor, grades are not so good; depending on the institution, there may not be any standardization at all in this measure.

To me, an obvious approach to the developmental mathematics problem is this:

Faculty are the most powerful resource available.

Instead of saying ‘bad teacher’, we should say “That does not look so good; what did you see happening?”  Instead of saying ‘bad teacher’, we should say “Are there conditions which negatively impacted your students that we could, together, improve?”  Instead of saying ‘bad teacher’, we should say “Can we identify what barriers exist in the learning for specific groups of students … and what development is needed for us to help all students succeed?”

Some of us might think that we do not need to worry about ‘removing bad teachers’ coming to higher education.  Especially in community colleges, we certainly do need to be concerned … whether it is at your institution yet, many colleges have become aware that they have opportunities to prevent new faculty from continuing by critiquing their teaching in the first two years.  Some states are implementing performance-based funding, where colleges get points … and $$ money $$ … for students ‘completing’ developmental mathematics as shown by grades; colleges in these states will have a vested interest in removing ‘bad teachers’ who fail too many students.  [I would like to believe that, in most cases, this removal will not be based just on the grades.]

In the emerging models (New Life, Pathways, Mathways), faculty are seen as the most powerful resource.  Professional development is intended to be be continuous and purposeful; expertise is gained both by the deliberate professional development and by the involvement in network of faculty.  In my view, a ‘bad teacher’ is a temporary condition … and one most of us have in our history.  Like mathematics for our students, becoming a good teacher is basically working hard with appropriate strategies.

Teachers are the most powerful resource; faculty are at the core of all solutions to the developmental mathematics problem.

 
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Treisman & Rotman Webinar – June 6 (AMATYC)

Uri Treisman and I have been involved with efforts to systematically reform developmental mathematics, such as New Life, Carnegie Pathways, and the Dana Center New Mathways.  Uri has been very supportive of our AMATYC work, including the New Life project.

On June 6 (4pm Eastern), we will be doing a joint Webinar on Issues in Implementing Reform in Developmental and Gateway Mathematics as part of the AMATYC webinar series.  The goals of this webinar are to present some general concepts to guide our work in reform, and to share some practical means to implement those concepts.

Here is the way the AMATYC webinars work — AMATYC members can register for a webinar (at http://www.amatyc.org/publications/webinars/index.html).  Registration usually begins about two weeks before the event (so you won’t see this one listed in April!).  AMATYC members who register will receive an email with directions (the day before the webinar). 

One thing to point out — people can watch the webinar as a group!  One person needs to be an AMATYC member and register; you can include non-members in the viewing process.  (The directions you receive will even tell you how to make the group process work better.)

I hope you can join us for this webinar.

Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Redesign: The “Basic Skills” Phrase of Today

Let me  say the most important thing first:  Redesign of developmental mathematics is not what is needed; we need to implement new models of meeting the mathematical needs of college students.   Okay, so that is the primary point … here is some background.

You are wondering about this redesign stuff … what does it mean?  How does redesign help students in developmental mathematics courses?  The word itself (“redesign”) has multiple meanings, essentially captured in this definition:

Redesign:  to revise in appearance, function, or content   (from Merriam-Webster dictionary)

A redesign might be referring to just the appearance, like having a 3-color cover for a textbook instead of 2 colors.  Most faculty would be looking for a redesign which looked at function or content (or both), with little concern for appearance.

A redesign is a revision to an existing course or curriculum which results in an altered functioning or content.  I suggest to you that we do not need redesign of developmental math courses; we need something more basic than revision.  Developmental mathematics has not (previously) had a deliberate model for identifying and addressing college student needs for pre-collegiate mathematics.  No, we have not had a model to revise … we have had a history, in fact a long legacy, consisting of loosely connected skills in polynomial arithmetic in service of a mythical calculus preparation.

Beginning a redesign effort assumes (or is based on evidence that) our current system is essentially sound, that it only takes some amount of revision to be good enough.  Think of it with this parable:

In the 1970’s, car companies realized that they would need to produce vehicles with improved fuel efficiency.  Their initial responses were based on the redesign — they took an existing model car, made the body smaller and made the engine as small as possible; with a few cosmetic changes, cars like the Ford Pinto were born.  Although these ‘redesigned’ cars sold reasonably well, the car companies were essentially basing their work on the same designs.  Meanwhile, other car companies (such as Toyota) created cars based on a totally different design — designs in which the better fuel efficiency was just part of a larger vision.  Eventually, the American car companies realized that a new vision of fuel efficient cars was needed … resulting in vehicles that offer a package of benefits including fuel efficiency.

If we redesign our existing developmental mathematics courses, we are putting a GPS unit on a 1973 Ford Pinto.  Now, I’ve got nothing against Ford; it’s a good company, and they have come out with some really nice vehicles.  However, the point is that redesign of developmental mathematics is reinforcing the current vision of the curriculum; this vision is not based on a coherent analysis of student needs and curriculum process … we have historical artifacts which have been given the look & feel of a curriculum.

A redesign of the current courses may provide some temporary relief, just as the ‘small’ cars of the 1970s.  However, we must recognize this basic fact:

We do not have a coherent model of developmental mathematics.

We work hard, we help quite a few students, they work hard … it’s impressive what we have accomplished without a model for our work.  Can you imagine what we are capable of, if we have a model for our work?  Guided and inspired by a vision for a model which meets real students’ needs with solid mathematics, our courses can become places where students realize their dreams and ambitions … where mathematics provides an on-ramp for college success.

So … do NOT redesign.  Get inspired by a new model; take a look at New Life … at Pathways … at Mathways.

 
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Workshop at AMATYC 2012

At the AMATYC 2012 conference (Jacksonville, FL — November 8 to 12) I will be making a general presentation on New Life … AND a workshop on the two courses in the New Life model (Mathematical Literacy for College Students – MLCS, and Transitions).  For general conference information, see http://www.amatyc.org/Events/conferences/2012Jacksonville/index.html 

I am thrilled to be able to provide both the general session and the workshop on the courses.  We are collecting ideas for the workshop over on the wiki for New Life (see http://dm-live.wikispaces.com/AMATYC+2012).  If you are not a member there yet, just follow the directions for joining the wiki; it is fairly easy to join, and membership is open to anybody with an interest.

Tentatively, the general New Life session is scheduled for November 8 (Thursday) from 9:00 to 9:50; the Workshop on New Life courses (MLCS and Transitions) is scheduled for November 9 (Friday) from 1:45 to 3:45.  Both sessions are being held in a larger room — feel free to pass along this information!

Hope to see you there.

Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook: