In this article, Boaler examines a school in California that has been labeled as "underperforming" despite her research saying otherwise. The school is found in an area that is typically represented by a low socio-economic-status population. The school itself receives minimal funding, however the mathematics teachers have developed strategies that do not necessarily rely on monetary resources. "The mathematics department plans lessons collaboratively, and the teachers meet every week to discuss and improve their lessons. They visit one another's classes frequently, and every new teacher is given the opportunity to watch every lesson that he or she will teach being taught by an experienced colleague first" (p.502). From Boaler's research, she has found that these strategies have made vast improvements in the students' mathematical learning. These students have surpassed their fellow peers in other California state schools. The reason for their low grade on performance from the state is due to the standardized testing (SAT-9) that takes place. Many of the students have poor language reading fluency and comprehension, and many of the questions on the test are very wordy.
We have been encouraged, as teachers, to incorporate more society-contexed questions into our teachings. Boaler makes an interesting point that these types of questions may be useful when first learning a new concept, however in the end we are assessing their mathematical ability and not their English language comprehension.
The labels placed on schools can be demoralizing to both student and teacher. Despite fantastic improvements in student learning, more and more teachers are feeling the pressure to 'teach to the test' so that their school receives a higher score/ranking. It seems that more students are only satisfied with an assessment of the test-taking skills, rather than their ability to learn.
How can the system change to acknowledge and reward schools such as this one?
Dave,
ReplyDeleteBoaler's remark of assessing mathematical ability and not English comprehension complicates the waters of this issue. Being relatively familiar with Boaler's work, I know that she is a proponent of students engaging with rich mathematical problems and puzzles. Often, such problems involve translating a "real world problem," written in plain English, into a mathematical context. Now, how wordy these questions are, I don't know. Regardless, if Boaler is arguing for removing such problems from standarized testing, is she not arguing for removing something she believes is a necessary component of rich mathematical learning? My article for this week focused on the issue of standardized tests loosing some of their mathematical depth and the fact that state standards and assessments do not match up. I think the answer to your question might lie along these lines. Firstly, if we want to acknowledge the improvement in such schools while still having state-wide assessment, the assessment must match the standards, but not in a way that encourages teaching to the test. From what I have read, most state standards encourage very rich mathematical thought, but this level of thought is not assessed in standardized assessment. If state assessment does emphasize such thought, using problems that often include few, if any, words at all, schools such as the one in Boaler's article might be recognized.
In terms of reward, I don't know. Obviously these teachers put a great deal of effort into the mathematical teaching and learning of their students. If anything, these teachers' successes should be recognized by someone besides a researcher. With such a cohesive mathematics department, the teachers should share their experiences with other schools, so they might see the same successes in their own schools. Sure, you could offer them bonuses, but I imagine that being asked by the school district to share their experience be more of a reward for the teachers.
Dave, you mentioned that we are being encouraged to add math with society-contexts into our classrooms. I think adding context can be hugely beneficial for increased student engagement and beyond, but how can standardized tests capture that? Every class will have a different context, no? Ideally, such contexts translate to improved math ability across the board, but clearly that is not the case. Translating word problems into something mathematically tractable is challenging at the best of times: when you cannot parse the language, then it seems unfair.
ReplyDeleteAs for your comment about acknowledging schools that are succeeding outside of tests... I have no good solutions for you. Are there ways of tracking students once they leave? Perhaps they are succeeding in impressive numbers? That sounds a little big brother-y of me...