Is This a Case of Double Standards?

South Dakota adopted the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) in 2010.  I think that anyone that compared these mathematics standards to the previous standards would say that the CCSSM are more rigorous.  In fact, the SD Department of Education (DoE) saw the need for workshops and training on the new mathematics standards and provided this training: several teacher workshop have been funded to provide additional training for teachers on the CCSSM.  It isn’t so much that the content is new, but that the way of teaching and emphasis on understanding rather than just following procedures is different than before.

This past year in the state there has been a lot of discussion on the shortage of highly qualified math teachers and a need for an alternative certification.  These discussions led to the DoE creating rules for a new Intermediate Mathematics Endorsement.  This new endorsement would allow a teacher that holds the endorsement to teach several courses, including Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II.  One might ask what extra courses need to be taken to earn the new endorsement.  Sadly, no extra courses--a teacher simply has to have a valid teaching certificate in some content area and then pass the Middle School Math Praxis.

Since I teach pre-service teachers in a course called Geometry for Teachers, I thought I had an excellent opportunity to ask these future math teachers if they would feel prepared to teach geometry if they passed a test that covered the geometry content from the Middle School Math Praxis.  I gave the students the list of geometry topics from the exam as well as the high school geometry CCSSM. 

I asked the students’ permission to use some of their comments anonymously in my blog.  Below are some of my favorite comments from the students. Each of these comments is from a different student.

Comment from student: “I don't think that passing a test with those things would leave you qualified. You would be missing one of the biggest parts of geometry... proofs! I feel that you need to know why you are doing any of those things and why they are true. This might be the single most important part. Along with that I don't think I would have enough knowledge about circles. I feel like what I'd be able to teach in circles would be limited.”

                Response from another student: “I completely agree with you. Proofs are probably the most important factor in geometry, so barely knowing how to do them ourselves would make it nearly impossible to teach young students. We have to be aware of how everything works and why it works that way. “

Comment from student: “I do not feel as though I would be able to teach geometry successfully by merely passing this exam. The topic list is vague, as is its statement that you must "understand" the topics. I believe that the test should require proofs because the ability to achieve the right answer doesn't mean you necessarily "understand" the reasoning/process, which is why proofs are included in the standards. I think that the topics presented are a good start, but that they need to be elaborated on more so that they are more specific. Also, the exam is only one form of assessment and I think I would need to be tested in more ways in order to feel qualified to teach not only geometry but any subject. “

Comment from student: “After taking that exam, I would not be qualified to teach a high school geometry course. One reason is the lack of details. The exam covered fairly overarching and brief details while the standards include more specific ways to do things such as using rigid motions. Another aspect missing from the exam is proofs. Verifying and proving things is a large part of the common core standards and there was no evidence of that kind of assessment on the exam. Besides for the topics themselves, just passing a geometry test does not imply that I would be good at teaching the subject. I would need to have further training to learn how to teach that content knowledge. Altogether, I would not feel qualified.”

Comment from student: “If an exam that covered those topics was used as a basis of evaluating whether or not I should be a teacher then I wouldn't feel qualified to be a teacher. First knowing a subject and being able to teach a subject are two different things. I could know every single detail about something but have no people skills or just not know how to word things so that people that aren't at the same academic level can understand. The other thing I noticed was that proofs were not explicitly mentioned on the list of topics. I remember when I took geometry in high school that my teacher was good at explaining to us how to go about doing proofs, which we spent a lot of time doing so I feel that it is a major component of high school geometry, and she was able to answer or give hints on a majority of the problems that we had concerning the proofs. She possessed content knowledge and people skills.”

These students are enrolled in a Mathematics with Teaching Specialization program.  They all agree that passing a test doesn’t make one qualified to be a teacher and that passing the Middle School Math Praxis is not sufficient to teach high school geometry.  To me, this Intermediate Math Endorsement is an insult to these students who are going to complete a rigorous mathematics degree.  I am very impressed with these students so far this semester and am confident that they are going to be great teachers.

So, is it a double standard to raise the mathematics standards for students by adopting the CCSSM and lowering the standards needed to be a teacher that teaches those standards?

The Beginning of Another Semester

It seems that I am usually dreading this time of year--mostly because it means the end of summer and a small amount of free time, but mostly because I am never mentally or physically prepared for the beginning of the fall semester.

This year it is very different--I am not only ready, but I am actually super excited about this semester.  Here are some possible reasons:

• We are in a new building, the best one on the #SDState campus.  
• My new office is clean and organized--it won't last long. 
• I get to teach freshmen in Calc I Lab.
• I get to use my new online book in Calc I Lab.  

Certainly those are great reasons, but I think it comes down to the fact that I love my job because I get to work with awesome students!

Last night Dr. Christine Larson and I received the nicest email from one of our alumni who is supervising one of our student teachers. He wrote: 
"I know how much I appreciated all of the amazing hard work you did for me, and I'm glad to see the same dividends with other graduates (and soon to be graduates)."

Chris and I have had the great opportunity to work with very talented students who then become talented teachers. Talk about job satisfaction!  There is nothing more satisfying than knowing that you are helping make an impact on countless children learning mathematics.

I hope that my semester continues to be as great as the first couple days. I wish all of you a wonderful and productive semester!

Our awesome new building

Evidence that my office was clean on the first day of classes

Learning From Your Students

My colleague, Dr. Christine Larson and I, just spent the last five days with twenty middle school and high school math teachers. We often have week-long teacher workshops in the summer, depending on whether or not our grant is funded. Every time we have a workshop, I always leave with more knowledge than when I started. Yes, Chris and I are the instructors, so shouldn’t we be the ones imparting knowledge on the participants?

The answer to that question is Yes and No. This answer reiterates what we did throughout the workshop—let your students explore the concepts, figure things out for themselves, and discuss what they discovered with their classmates. Yes, this is an extremely difficult way to teach. Yes, things will not always go as planned—sometimes they will be better and sometimes they will be worse. But the one thing that will always happen is that you will learn from your students and your students will learn from each other!

The participants in our workshop ranged from teachers that just finished their first year of teaching to those that have taught more than 30 years. All of them contributed to the conversation, shared great ideas, developed creative lesson plans, and learned from each other. And both Chris and I learned a lot as well.

I think that sometimes as instructors we think that we need to know everything that might happen in our classroom; that we need to impart our expertise to the students; and that we don’t have time to let students explore on their own. However, some of the best learning takes place when students explore concepts on their own and discuss their ideas with each other.

How do we find the balance between student exploration and concept coverage in our classrooms?

                                                             Group Photo

Back row (Left to right):  Jerry Toering, Chamberlain; Patti Hancock, Chamberlain; Pam Zubke, Brookings; Cassandra Richter, Brookings; Amy Tvedt, Deuel; Jane Syltie, Brookings; Carolyn Burns, Deuel; Ashley Brockhaus, Aberdeen; Amy Thompson, Aberdeen; Jarrod Huntimer, Brookings.

Front row (left to right):  Todd Jorgenson, Brookings; Tom Carruthers, Chamberlain; Kelli Pazour, Chamberlain; Lori Wagner, Webster; Sharon Vestal, SDSU faculty; Julie Abraham, Brookings; Michelle Moeding, Iroquois; Christine Larson, SDSU faculty; Cindee Evenson, Menno; Adam Juba, Brookings; Adam Nelson, Chamberlain; Jeff Rademacher, Chamberlain.

The Success of an Organization

You have heard the saying, “an organization is only as good as its people.”  As we attempt to evaluate the success of our NSF-funded REMAST Scholarship Program, we keep coming back to “it’s all about the people.” 

Last week we had our 5^th annual REMAST Summer Conference.  As always, it was a lot of fun and a huge success.  Every year it is a lot of work, but when it comes together, it is so worth it.  It truly is two of my favorite days of the summer because I get to spend it with awesome people.  Again, it goes back to the people!

As I sat listening to our outside evaluator ask questions of a focus group of alumni, I realized something that I had never thought about before.  One of the alumni said, “Getting selected for REMAST meant that they believed in me.”  I have no idea why I hadn’t thought about that before—the fact that someone picked you as part of their group means they believe in you! 

The power of someone believing in you makes you more successful.  This seems like such a simple idea, but it also seems like more organizations need to embrace the idea.   And it isn’t just about stacking your organization with lots of successful people—it is about building relationships amongst those people.

Last week, whether the participants realized it or not, the REMAST conference focused on building relationships.  The first day, participants drew a playing card to see which table they would sit at (thanks to Dr. Nepal for that great idea).  And then the tables were tasked (thanks to the South Dakota Innovation Lab) to build a tower out of an unlimited number of notecards and 12 inches of masking tape. The second day, participants were organized into teams for the Campus Scavenger Hunt.  I purposely put together the teams in a way so that they would have one new REMAST scholar, and one or two alumni.  I also tried to make is so that there was at least one science person in each group. 

I hope the result of the conference was the new scholars feeling like they fit in, the alumni feeling like they belong, and everyone feeling like we are family.  We are in education for the long haul, we are in it together, and we believe in each other.  Those are the successes of the REMAST Scholarship Program.

Ryan having fun while measuring.

Liz and Mark working to make their tower the tallest.

Jessica, Brendan, and Cindy on the Scavenger Hunt.