Our debate on Math's "Sold a Story" moment
First of all, I am blessed to have found math instruction. Only my second year (in math, 8th in education) but I've found my passion. The debate on where math instruction is heading on here and in my growing ideological circles is very interesting and exciting to be a part of!
We seem to be aligned on our fear: Goes by different names but a growing intention on "exploratory learning" approaches that veer from the traditional methods of Direct Instruction. We also seem to align on who the culprits are: In general, societal pressure on a national level to improve test scores, various curriculum companies and even specific people like Jo Boaler.
I love saying our "Sold a Story" moment not just because I loved the podcast but because I love what it stands for. SaS presented large institutions, systems, and the people that represented them as the primary culprits. However, they didn't suggest that institutions and systems were the solution. Rather it was individual teachers and parents working to make the difference.
I don't want us to get stuck in blaming systems. Blaming Lucy Calkins and Fontas & Pinnell gave SaS and our reading instruction crisis a spotlight outside of the field of education. I don't think we can hope for that same spotlight again when it comes to math. As we work to rebuild a successful framework from the small scale contributions of individual teachers and parents, I hope to see us do the same.
Where are you all looking for evidence supported practices? How are you all working to ensure you are implementing them while juggling pressure to implement practices that are less so? I taught reading, and in doing so, I made the mistake of using those faulty practices. I want to do better with math, and I want math teachers to align quicker than reading teachers did. I've been working my way through What Works Clearinghouse but I want more.