The Fundamental Rule of Math Class: I teach something, you go home, open up the homework, do what I showed you in class, and you’ll be fine. Same thing on the test.
If a student gets some math published, should that hurt the teacher’s evaluation?
Many teachers never deviate from the rule. And me? I obey the rule, too. Most of the time. Even those of us who don’t always do it, we do it more than we used to. (thanks to standardized testing and the insane link between standardized test scores and the teacher’s evaluation score.)
I taught you how to simplify square roots? When you look at the home work, you’ll be asked to simplify square roots. Do what we did in class, and you’ll be fine.
Breaking the Rule
But some days are different. I introduce “problems” – little ones that take a few minutes, and big ones, where I have moved ahead in my curriculum so that we can carve out a day or day and a half here or there. I offer problems that do not fit the Math Class Game – always off-topic, usually using skills from prior units, or prior years. How many games will there be in a single elimination tennis tournament (singles) with 73 players? How many times a day do the minute and hour hands point in the same direction? What’s the biggest perfect square with only even digits?
“… I ask a group of you a question, unrelated to what we did yesterday, seemingly out of left field, that requires only math that you already know, but without any of the usual cues about what tool to use… Questions mix counting, arithmetic, organization, and visualization skills. They require reasoning, planning.”
And for the last three years, I have asked the students to do more, and more. Take one of the “problems” that you already solved, and propose an extension. Change it up to make a new problem, and solve that one. Mostly I get variations of the checkerboard, how many subsets, and Ghost the Bunny.
The Price or the Payoff?
As these are the same students whose standardized test scores determine my year-end rating (Thank you Obama, Duncan, Cuomo, Weingarten, and Mulgrew), giving up teaching days is a risky venture. Last year my test scores were “effective” but this year they a) count more than twice as much, and b) could easily end up “developing.” I’m guessing I’ll be ok, but if I am not, and I get TIPped, they’ll pretty much have to put “increase regents scores” in the plan and the first thing they’d look for is “stop throwing away days teaching off-curriculum.” And that’s on top of the TIP already being an unpleasant and fairly useless process. Do I really need to face that so late in my career? Because of test scores that are fine, but do not reach some expectation that is kept secret from me, is set by no one I know, and that no one directly involved actually cares about?
Of course there’s payoff. Kids have fun doing math. That’s worth something. They persevere with an extended task, with the finish line not in clear view at the beginning. That’s big. They propose a new problem, not knowing if they can finish it, and they plow in, hoping to make progress. In some cases students do not complete their problem – in their write up they include advice for the next students to try the same problem. Some finish their problem – they often make suggestions for further inquiry. You know, they are behaving – just a little – like little mathematicians. That’s payoff.
And then there’s M. Her problem this fall generated an alternate interpretation for a known sequence, and will have to be submitted to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. Like, published. I want to work with her to help her understand more fully what she’s done before she sends the math in for review. At that point I will share the details in this space.
Hmmph. I’ve been doing math, in one form or another for 40 odd years, and nothing of mine has been published. I’ll take credit for asking the kids to be creative, and for recognizing that her sequence seemed unusual, and for knowing a few combinatoricists. Still, not my name going on the entry.
Thing is, M is a good math student, but works a bit slowly on tests. If we could have the problem solving days back, and turn them into test prep, we could probably raise her score a few points. And given the unpredictability of “growth scores” those few points could make the difference between her hurting my score or helping my score.
As long as I don’t get a “Developing” I will claim I don’t care. But if I get a D? Who knows. It raises an interesting question: If a student gets some math published, should that hurt the teacher’s evaluation?
The headline in the NY Teacher (online, January 19, 2017) reads: “DeVos flunks first test”
But more interestingly, in the first line: “Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s pick for U.S. education secretary…”
In fact, Trump’s name and actions have been popping up in UFT and New York Teacher stuff since the New Year. But that was after an unofficial moratorium since the election. Over a month of the UFT leadership avoiding his name.
Are we there yet? After two months of confusion? cowardice? caution? is the UFT Leadership now ok using his name, or is it not?
We are worried here. Two stories.
On the UFT Website, a new article (last week?), with a fascinating title: “Mike Pence & Betsy Devos: The Threat to the Nation’s Public Schools”
I’m not making this up. Go look. You can see his name once, as if he were tangentially connected to the people he appoints. Who let this get published like that? What warped mind doesn’t say “you know, any member who reads this is going to think we are complete idiots, or that we are totaled scared of Trump, and neither of those is the best message to send just now”?
Right after the election, remember those days? Remember how scared so many kids and adults were in school – worried about the future? Worried about tomorrow? Worried about women’s rights? LGBTQ rights? About deportation? About harassment by thugs? Violence by police?
Anyway, this story is then. Right after the election Unity leadership brought New Action and MORE a resolution about the atmosphere of hate that Trump’s candidacy had generated. I signed it. Exec Board voted it up, unanimously.
Then the leadership e-mails. Someone wants to change it. They don’t even say who. Here’s the language from the e-mail: “Several executive board members asked that we amend the resolution. The presidential campaign has provided the current tenor in this country, and the resolution below addresses those concerns.”
But look at the change they wanted:
WHEREAS, president-elect Donald Trump targeted communities on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity and religion, and displayed abusive behavior toward women, has threatened the nation’s promise that all people are worthy of respect; and
WHEREAS, president-elect Donald Trump has outlined an education agenda overtly hostile to public schools and teachers, promising to prioritize vouchers and charter schools at the expense of public schools ; and
WHEREAS, the presidential election targeted communities on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity and religion, and displayed abusive behavior toward women, has threatened the nation’s promise that all people are worthy of respect; and
WHEREAS, the presidential election has outlined an education agenda overtly hostile to public schools and teachers, promising to prioritize vouchers and charter schools at the expense of public schools ; and
They didn’t even have the decency to say they were taking out his name.
To their credit, they allowed debate at the next Exec Board. And they took responsibility for making the change (the e-mail says “several exec board members” – I called them on it and the Secretary corrected it to “the leadership”). But every argument they made was an argument against ever endorsing a candidate. And they voted, party line, to keep his name out.
– – — — —– ——– ————- ——————— ————- ——– —– — — – –
I wonder why they did it. My first thought is that they had not allowed the AFT to vet the reso, and that the AFT wanted to play footsie with the Trump. Certainly the Bloomberg era taught has how susceptible Weingarten is to not very subtle flattery, and we know how little Casey is to be trusted. But no, the AFT had one cautious statement, and then started using his name. NYSUT, right off the bat was critical. So this was the UFT. Maybe pressure from the pro-civil rights in Washington but not in my neighborhood wing of Unity Caucus old-timers? Possible. Or maybe some half-baked idea that calling Trump “Trump” would alienate conservative UFTers (but without much logic – if they could be turned off to the union for a political stance, that would have been the Hillary endorsement). Or maybe it was just cowardice. If we stand up, we become a target. Silly, of course, because being a union makes us a target, no matter what we say about Trump.
It looks likely that he will get the UFT endorsement. He already has endorsements from many unions – starting with the sanitation workers.
Still, bad optics on AFT President Randi Weingarten hosting a fundraiser for de Blasio, using AFT facilities, before the UFT has run through its endorsement process.
After a decade of misplayed mayoral endorsements (Alan Hevesi, failed to make run-off, Fernando Ferrer, lost run-off, Mark Green, lost election, all 2001, Fernando Ferrer lost election 2005, no endorsement 2009 when Bill Thompson actually had a chance to end the Bloomberg education calamity) a less confident leader might have concluded that her “endorsement radar” was bad. Randi is not burdened by such useless introspection.
Nor is she alarmed by her presidential record (2008 way way early endorsement of Hillary, last union to stick with her, even as Obama wrapped the thing up; 2012 even earlier endorsement of Hillary…)
Nor is she constrained by correct process – local endorsements belong to the locals.
I didn’t vote for her. That doesn’t stop me from being embarrassed for my union.
Who can tell me anything about submitting to the On-line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences? Not a new sequence, but a new interpretation for an existing one.
And yes, it is a real thing.
And yes, I am serious.
Is this true?
Any confirmation? Sources?
When the Department of Education (still under Bloomberg) failed in its attempt to shut down Clinton four years ago, they didn’t give up. They planted two mini-schools in the building, eating up a floor and isolating the library. They discouraged middle schools from sending their students, causing enrollment to plummet. And they brought in Santiago Taveras, with a checkered pedagogical resumé, to demoralize the staff. Which he has done. Nice, smiley guy, who empowered arbitrary, impossible, unreasonable hatchetmen.
Last Spring he manipulated a personnel issue (Clinton has faced multiple years of down-sizing) to “get” the then-UFT Chapter Leader out of the building. We, the whole union, should have gone to war over that. Mentioned indirectly here.
So today, if he really was removed, we should want to know more. What for? Why? And what changes does this signal for the school, and for high schools in general?
Until we know more, it is not possible to know if this change (if it happened) will help bring DeWitt Clinton back, or push it deeper into the hole. Stay tuned.
From the Spring: Speak the truth. Work for Change. It’s not about you.
Needed additions: Act against racism. Act against anti-immigrant bigotry/hatred. Act against sexism. Act against homophobia.
Also: Act for fairness. Act in solidarity.
Looking away = acquiescence (and is absolutely unacceptable)