Prior to the start of my weekly writing class, a short discussion bounced around Zoom on “new and improved”. In one case we hit on education.
Is new math more effective? Do new reading programs produce better results? Do drastic schedule changes score increased productivity? Is change the hinge to superior education?
I recognize the potential benefits in each of these areas, but I wonder if we will ever attain the desired outcomes or are we repeatedly re-inventing?
Let’s begin with “new math”. According to a research expert online, the idea that new math would be better began in the 1920s. Unsure of what these changes may have been, I checked out a couple of sites and learned about Tatiana Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa, a Russian mathematician and physicist.
Her 1924 essay, “What can and should education in geometry bring to the non-mathematician?” she states: Education in geometry will only bear full fruit […] when we assign to intuition its proper place in thinking. Psychologically, when we are ready to formalize the results of our thinking, this is only because we already understand ‘intuitively’ what we are going to do.
Thus geometry was added to curriculum as part of “new math”. I wish my father, a mathematician and student of the 1920s, could be here to explain his experiences. I find it hard to imagine not being taught geometry in secondary school, but I suppose many find it pointless even today. Tatiana’s explanation is enlightening and provokes thought.
New reading programs… Ah, there are many. Phonics? Whole language? Small group or whole class instruction? Picture books versus chapter books? When googling this topic, every site promoted its particular method while backtracking on previous programs or discounting earlier ideas on the strongest reading instruction.
Then, some sites united reading with STEM and which particular system had superlative outcomes in science, technology, engineering, and math.
The solution? Vague. Confusing. Disconcerting. Actually, all three as each site argued its system performed #1.
Conclusions, if I can draw any, include the idea that there is no “one-size-fits-all” in math or reading, just as there is no simple answer on how to best educate all children. My observations indicate that each child needs to be met on his/her level [I know I am supposed to use the pronoun their but I have not quite been able to jettison an old habit]. Ideal, but virtually impossible.
With 25+ students per classroom, multiplied at the secondary level, how can one educator individualize every topic for every student? In the 1970s teaching practice encouraged teachers to customize assignments for every student.
My junior high students each had a folder with special packets to meet learning needs.
At 22, I had excess energy and drive and the notion felt doable. It worked, although perhaps it frazzled me a bit, but I had a fairly empty platter then and so I had time to juggle whole class, small group, and assignments adjusted weekly. Later with my own children and more life demands, keeping up drained me. I simplified while trying to also offer one-on-one opportunities.
A current n change in secondary schools is later start for older students who require extra sleep. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Adolescents do need copious amounts of snooze time, however will late start encourage earlier bedtime? Okay, do not respond to that as I already sense this may not prove to be the remedy.
Is change good? I’d have to say yes, with the caveat to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I received a well-rounded public education in four different districts in two states. Memorization was key in math; individual reading packets valued in reading. Accompanying these came strong guidance from teachers plus parents with high expectations.
Each teacher taught in a unique style that matched subject and personality which added to the proficiency of the instruction. Mom and Dad applied gentle but clear pressure and I appreciate the powerful influence of their fine minds and example had on me. As for higher education, I felt pretty much left on my own but fortunately I had a firm foundation built throughout earlier school years.
Is new better? Sometimes. Is a combination good? Usually. Is tossing out the old essential? Partially. I realize that telling students “I’m implementing all of the old ways” (because I am old and tired) is not beneficial.
Well-rounded, thoughtful, farsighted, and brave teaching sounds right to me with slight re-invention as needed.