Ballard High School Survey on Math Instructional Programs

A Survey of Ballard High School Students and Parents:
What do they want from their mathematic instructional programs?

by Nakonia (Niki) Hayes

Ancient thinkers weren't just intellectuals. Some were even intelligent—a mental and emotional capacity that Professor Rueven Feuerstein, a cognitive psychologist in Jerusalem, defines as "knowing the right thing to do at the right time to get the right response." Learning from some of the ancient thinkers could offer special understanding in today's world of mathematics education. For example, Plato said, "Arithmetic stirs up him who is by nature sleepy and dull and makes him quick to learn, retentive and shrewd. He makes progress quite beyond his powers . . . "

In the late 1500s, Sir Francis Bacon recommended the study of mathematics to remedy thinking problems such as lack of attention. And John Locke, a 17th century British philosopher and medical researcher who believed reason must be used to discern truth, added another dimension: "The need for mental discipline is not a question of learning or geography or geometry: it is a question of learning to work; of learning the weariness of concentrating one's attention on the matter in hand."

Most would agree that learning mathematics requires concentration and organized, analytical thinking—and subsequent synthesis as shown by creative application. But how could logical, rational math become subjected to emotional "math wars" over the past 16 years, with no end in sight? What is it that some Seattle students (and their parents) want from mathematic instruction, compared to those entangled in the intellectual "math wars"?

In late May of 2005, some teachers in the math department at Ballard High School conducted a one-page survey among their students and parents. It was not a scientific exercise. It was designed simply to give a quick sense of what students and parents want from the school's math instructional program.

Of 1500 math students, 840 were surveyed during classes, ranging from AP Calculus to Introductory Math to Special Education. In addition, 384 parents returned the one-page surveys; of those, 34 took time to add written comments.

The survey was also designed to help quantify opinions among students and adult stakeholders, while teachers try to plan instruction within a national "math wars" environment that has developed over the past 16 years. That war is between those who want the "whole math" approach and those who support a more traditional curriculum.

Simply put, the "whole math" approach stresses integration within specific math content areas (general math, algebra, geometry, trig, etc.) for grades K-10, as well as integration with other disciplines. Separate math subjects are not taught as stand-alone units; instead, efforts are made to show the relationships among them and other subjects. Mastery of the "whole" thus becomes intuitive, rather than focusing on the more concrete and traditional mastery of separate math operations.

It is not until students prove themselves with higher grades and exit tests at Ballard High School that they can enroll in Math Analysis, Pre-Calculus, Statistics, Honors, and Advanced Placement courses. At that point, instruction becomes content-specific (not "integrated" within math or across disciplines).

A recurring problem has become apparent for students when they reach these content-specific courses and they cannot show proficiency in prerequisite algebra and geometry skills. The teachers in the advanced courses (and even some science teachers) must spend time on remediation work.

Those who do not take advanced classes but who want to attend college also learn about their own algebra deficiency in a more costly way. That is, students enrolling in community colleges through university levels must take math placement tests to show their levels of proficiency before they can sign up for college math classes. The escalating, publicized requirement for college level, non-credit remedial classes clearly signals this recognized problem. Not only are students' choices of college majors limited, they must spend extra time and dollars for schooling.

To compare staff professional opinions and those reflected by district leaders on these issues with those who receive our math instruction, both students and parents were asked to rank six "preferences" for math instruction as related to their personal academic needs. With #1 being the most preferred and #3 being the least preferred, all six choices could be checked as #1 since they were not designed to be mutually exclusive:

a) To be taught mastery of basic math skills.
b) To be prepared for college math or other education/training after high school.
c) To be taught a sense of success with math.
d) To be taught for success on WASL.
e) To be taught through "discovery" learning with more hands-on activities/projects.
f) To be taught math skills usable in home, consumer and/or career settings.

Of special note were 55 students who admitted to "blowing off" the WASL, while 26 said they did that "some," and 148 "didn't know." Only 262 said they took the test seriously. That means the other 229 were questionable in their efforts. Does that invalidate the use of the WASL for planning instruction?

Another significant issue for teachers were responses to the question, "Do you see math as an important subject that will impact your future (career, job, home)?" There were 424 who said "yes," but 369 students indicated, at various levels, that they weren't sure about math relevance to them.

As with any data, follow-up questions must be asked. For example, how do we respond to the following with clear steps that everybody can understand?

1) What really are the best resources for delivering basic skills, college prep, and personally usable math skills for Ballard students? What is the definition, for example, of basic skills? Shouldn't there be "basic skills" required for students in the novice, proficient, and advanced courses (operations, axioms, theorems, etc.)?

2) At the same time, what strategy can obtain buy-in among math teachers to make the subject more relevant and transcendent across students' personal lives?

3) How can the rationale for Ballard's math program and its expectations be communicated more clearly with both students and parents? The survey shows student knowledge of the Ballard math program is all over the board, with 314 saying they like Integrated Math, but a total of 488 either not liking it at all (154), or liking it "some" (130), and 210 saying "don't know." There were similar responses from the parents' survey. At which time, and with what plan, is that communication begun for all stakeholders?

4) What will it take to convince district and/or business leaders the validity of the Ballard staff's preferred curriculum, if changes are indicated? Will such discussions hinge mainly on costs of potential resources, especially with the severe budget crisis being faced by the Seattle district at this time?

6) What strategy could be used to get those in power to take seriously some ideas that are outside that " proverbial" box? That is, "How it can be done, rather than why it can not."

One suggestion is that the ACT or SAT, with state-determined scores on a "sliding scale," could be used as exit tests for most students. These tests have established respect among parents, students, teachers and most colleges.

The costs of two attempts on the tests, with students aiming for a particular score, could be borne by the district. This could assure that students in all economic circumstances would have an opportunity to take this recognized test. What would be the cost for this, compared to that of creating, printing, scoring, and storing WASL tests?

Second, could tests similar to community college or university math placement exams be used as exit tests?

Third, couldn't the state be responsible only for the development of alternate tests for special students? Wouldn't this be a more efficient and effective public relations program to sell to the parents, as well as the state and federal governments?

Wouldn't this help students take "exit testing" more seriously, especially prior to their senior year? As shown in the survey, learning for success on the WASL is the least important concern for both students and parents. (Is this because they have seen no personal impact on them until graduation 2008?)

Delaying concern over the exit test until 2008 by both students and parents could be recognized as short-sighted. Respected and accepted tests, which can be correlated with other tests, could teach students the importance of benchmark tests throughout their lives, both in school and in the workplace.

Considering the clear impact of math deficiencies today—and likely in the near future—on WASL scores, SAT requirements, and other college math placement tests for course enrollment, educators must come to grips with the continuing impact of the adult-sponsored national "math wars" on a local instructional program.

The ripple effects of that war can be traced to 1989 when the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) published their first Curriculum and Evaluation Standards. Their underlying theme throughout teacher training materials expressed, "Clearly, the changes call for more emphasis on understanding and conceptual development and for far less attention to skill development." This quote, from an Addenda Series for Number Sense in Middle School Math, also explained that decreased attention must be given to "memorizing rules and algorithms, practicing tedious paper-and-pencil computations, finding exact forms of answers, and memorizing procedures, such as cross multiplication, without understanding." The "without understanding" makes this statement "make sense." However, many of the good points being made by NCTM were lost in a rush by educators to address perceived learner "feelings" with more literary approaches.

Thus, the NCTM's signature became one of developing a "math sense" through exploration and integrating lessons, so that learning would be in context and not isolated bits of knowledge. Many teachers knew those methods had been used by master teachers at least 70 years ago in public education. Reviewing math texts from the 1930s through the 1950s will prove many publishers integrated the real world in math. And while 80-90% of those texts consisted of word problems, their "drill and skill" lessons were not seen as "drill and kill," which is a criticism by the NCTM.

Some of those ripple effects across education included the following:

College preparation for teachers was changed to reflect the integrated or "whole math" concept, which was also described later as "a mile wide and an inch deep."

Parents became confused by the new emphasis on using fun and entertainment activities and said they couldn't help their children with the new "new" math.

Publishers earned big bucks as new materials were created and sold.

Employers fussed about students who couldn't do mental math or linear (organized) thinking, skills thought to be learned in more traditional mathematical instruction.

Business and government leaders returned to the idea that practice and repetition were not bad methods, but were actually good tools for learning. Many teachers also knew those tools created automaticity in thinking, or habitual, predictable behavior. Good habits, which provide quick responses to problems involving basic skills, could leave more learning time and mental space for critical and creative thinking.

Ballard's surveyed students want to be prepared for college, know basic math skills and have knowledge of math for use in everyday life. How to get there is the crux of the "math wars" among most educators and many parents. Yet, it is already known who the real peacemakers could be in this war: Teachers are needed who are so well grounded in theory and skills, they can modify and accommodate for different learning abilities and styles without compromising the principles and concepts of their subject. Until such a teacher corps develops, an economic boom will exist for authors and publishers of experimental educational programs for teachers to try on students.

Keeping in mind the survey responses from Ballard students and parents, some math teachers are meeting this summer to clarify options within their math curriculum. A resulting proposal for action will be issued to administrators with dates, activities, and responsible persons. It's time to bring local data-supported reasoning back into the math wars debate. That effort will be made at Ballard High School in Seattle.

About the author

Niki Hayes served as Principal at North Beach Elementary School in Seattle. While there, she led reform efforts which resulted in huge gains in the Washington Assessment of Student Learning. Due to health requirements, Niki started teaching half time as a math teacher at Ballard High School. Next year, she will return to full time math teaching. She formerly worked as an education specialist for Region 12 Education Service Center in Waco, Texas where she served as 504 coordinator for its 79 school districts and as a teacher trainer for the SPED programs. She has also been a principal for a P-12 public school on the Spokane Indian Reservation. Nakonia (Niki) Hayes can be reached at n.c.hayes@worldnet.att.net

©September 2005 New Horizons for Learning
http://www.newhorizons.org
info@newhorizons.org
For permission to redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons for Learning Copyright and Permission Information