As you can tell, I am working on rolling out the site for the 201617 school year. Check out our 201617 draft Vision, and scroll through the new additions to our Resource Primer!
From over at my mathissippi blog.
The idea of “teaching for social justice” holds a long history of discourse in the educational world, and as such holds a myriad of terms and (sometimes conflicting) ideas which describe it. When considering the idea of “teaching mathematics for social justice” (TMSJ), it is important to understand the distinctions in the choice of this wording and its relation to other related fields of study. TMSJ holds many common threads with critical pedagogy and culturally relevant pedagogy, but it is not sufficient to use all of these terms interchangeably.
An immediate consideration of TMSJ is that it is framed as teaching for, not teaching about or teaching with social justice. As Stinson and Wager (2012) summarize of Paulo Freire’s work –
[teaching] mathematics about social justice refers to the context of lessons that explore critical (and oftentimes controversial) social issues using mathematics. Teaching mathematics with social justice refers to the pedagogical practices that encourage a cocreated classroom and provides a classroom culture that encourages opportunities for equal participation and status. And teaching mathematics for social justice is the underlying belief that mathematics can and should be taught in a way that supports students in using mathematics to challenge the injustices of the status quo as they learn to read and rewrite their world.” (p. 6, emphasis in original)
As such, TMSJ is not composed of a collection of instructional resources and strategies, but is rather based on the disposition of the teacher and the student. A teacher cannot merely conduct a social justicethemed lesson and consider themselves as teaching for social justice; a teacher must in all their actions be working to challenge dominant and oppressive structures which hold back the full potential of their students. In the words of Gutstein and Peterson (2006) “social justice math is not something to sneak into the cracks of the curriculum” (p. 5).
In this regard, TMSJ holds many similarities with critical pedagogy. Critical pedagogy, which is grounded in “[driving] teachers and students to acknowledge and understand the interconnecting relationships among ideology, power, and culture and the social structures and practices that produce and reproduce knowledge” (Stinson & Wager, 2012, p. 8), also demands a unique disposition amongst educators. Although works of earlier educators such as John Dewey or W.E.B. Du Bois are thought to be grounded in critical pedagogy (Eubanks, Parish, & Smith, 1997, p. 151; Stinson & Wagner, 2012, p. 8), it is the work of Brazilian educator Paulo Friere that might best be said to have originated the movement around critical pedagogy in the United States (Stinson & Wagner, 2012, p. 8). Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed clearly shows its relevance even to this day, as “nearly every contributing author to [the Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice compilation book] acknowledges Freire as having a significant influence on her or his work” (Stinson & Wager, 2012, p. 9). Because of this evolution from critical pedagogy to TMSJ, it is useful to consider the relationship between a more critical pedagogical approach and other related approaches such as culturally relevant or responsive pedagogy.
Culturally relevant pedagogy, which has also been labeled “culturally appropriate,” “culturally responsive,” and “culturally compatible” (LadsonBillings, 1995, p. 159) shares some fundamental similarities with the more critical approach to TMSJ. As Gloria LadsonBillings (1995) explains, culturally relevant pedagogy can be thought of as comprising of three categories: academic success, cultural competence, and critical consciousness (p. 160162). At first glance, these categories might seem well aligned to TMSJ: LadsonBillings frames meaningful academic success around student culture and identity, she notes cultural competence as “utilizing students’ culture as a vehicle for learning,” and she explains critical consciousness as “a broader sociopolitical consciousness that allows [students] to critique…cultural norms” (p. 160162). LadsonBillings even cites Friere in her defense of culturally relevant pedagogy, stating that approaches that achieved academic success for African Americans during the civil rights movement inspite of were “similar to that advocated by noted critical pedagogue Paulo Freire” (p. 160). Friere and critical pedagogy are clearly an influence on LadsonBillings.
However, there are some fundamental differences between LadsonBillings’ culturally responsive pedagogy and Friere’s critical pedagogy, and it is these differences that separate (and at times muddle) the idea of TMSJ. In critical pedagogy, the school system is seen as “a major part of society’s institutional processes for maintaining a relatively stable system of inequality,” or the “hegemony” of a small group of elites over a broader society (Eubanks, Parish, & Smith, 1997, p. 151). This hegemony is counter to TMSJ and strikes out in a myriad of ways. Educational standards frame the purpose of schooling as “merely preparing for professional success,” while standardized tests are both held up as valid measures of success and used as “gatekeepers” which help determine the “intellectual elites” of our society (D’Ambrosio, 2012, p. 202207). It is not just that students are failing academically; it is that the academic system is set up to sustain hegemony. This idea of hegemony creates inherent issues with the culturally relevant approach to education. While LadsonBillings (1995) frames culturally responsive teaching as “[getting] students to ‘choose’ academic excellence” (p. 160), critical pedagogy states that we need to rethink our society’s entire idea of academic excellence (Eubanks, Parish, & Smith, 1997, p. 152). If we consider our educational system to be a structurally unsound house, culturally relevant pedagogy would have us work to repair and remodel the house, while critical pedagogy would have us demolish the house and start anew. Even though LadsonBillings (1995) speaks to the importance of infusing cultural competency and critical consciousness in tandem with creating academic success for students, Friere (1970) counters this approach of seeking social justice within the context of the current system, saying –
Unfortunately, those who espouse the cause of liberation are themselves surrounded and influenced by the climate which generates the banking concept [a system of oppressive education], and often do not perceive its true significance or its dehumanizing power. Paradoxically, then, they utilize this same instrument of alienation in what they consider an effort to liberate…[One] does not liberate people by alienating them. Authentic liberation – the process of humanization – is not another deposit to be made in men. Liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it. Those truly committed to the cause of liberation can accept neither the mechanistic concept of consciousness as an empty vessel to be filled, nor the use of banking methods of domination…in the name of liberation.” (p. 79)
If the definition of TMSJ is to retain the element of “using mathematics to challenge the injustices of the status quo” (Stinson & Wager, 2012, p. 6), it requires more than a culturally relevant pedagogy. While TMSJ incorporates elements of culturally relevant pedagogy (cultural responsiveness, critical consciousness), it aligns much more with critical pedagogy in its determination to not simply work within the current, unjust educational system, but to rebuild it in a democratic way.
References
D’Ambrosio, U. (2012). A Broader Concept of Social Justice. In Teaching mathematics for social justice: Conversations with educators (p. 201213). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Eubanks, E., Parish, R., & Smith, D. (1997) Changing the Discourse in Schools. In P. M. Hall (Ed.), Race, ethnicity, and multiculturalism: Policy and practice (p. 151168). Taylor & Francis.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gutstein, E., & Peterson, R. (2005) Rethinking mathematics: Teaching social justice by the numbers. Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools.
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into practice, 34(3), 159165.
Stinson, D. W., & Wager, A. (2012). A sojourn into the empowering uncertainties of teaching and learning mathematics for social change. In Teaching mathematics for social justice: Conversations with educators (p. 318). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Centers day is my favorite day of the week. My students have fun, learn from each other, and do most of the talking. On top of that, I uncover tons of relevant information on student mastery and growth. But let me clarify – our centers have not always been this fun and successful. They used to be pretty miserable. Today I’m going to share how I created a meaningful and joyful structure in my classroom using math centers. The first step is organization. Most of the materials are in one packet and students just work on whatever page that corresponds with the Center that they are located at. When designing centers, you want to ensure that everything is ready and waiting for students to engage. Timing and directions are another important part of organization – consistently behavior narrate expectations to ensure that your students receive feedback on their alignment with the directions and have an opportunity to quickly correct if needed. By having each Center last for 68 minutes I also ensure that students have ample and urgent work to complete, cutting down on time to get bored and act out.
Again, my Centers days go well only when I begin with ridiculously clear and explicit directions. I always share our centers rules and make sure to check for understanding in order to ensure that students are listening and have internalized the rules. Here is what I share:
After grounding ourselves in the overall structure of centers, we clarify the directions for each station. I no longer have to do this for my students, but it is important the first time you conduct centers to make sure everybody understands what is expected. Below is a breakdown of all directions on the first page of the centers packet. Here is the First Page of my Centers packet that I gave two weeks ago. Also, I think you should follow up the directions page with a page that has a rough outline of your classroom and what students should be doing at each station. The following is an example of a graphic that I display on the Smart Board while students are working at stations. This gives students a graphic reminder of what they should be doing at what Center:
Centers Directions
Center 1: KABOOM
· During the Game of KABOOM, students will practice some of the concepts that they’ve learned throughout this review week · The Table Manager will serve as the judge for the KABOOM game! · Everyone should be having fun at this station! Do not ruin it by getting into petty arguments about the game! · Once the timer is up and Mr. JB tells you to transition, the team manager will come to the front and write down the name of the winner! JUDGE:________________________________________________ 
Center 2: Student Work Corrections
· At this station, students will be responsible for correcting student work with the people at their table. · Each question is answered WRONG. Therefore, students must use 2 FULL SENTENCES to explain what is wrong with the student answer. · Students must also show the correct answer on the page with the correct work shown. · All writing at this station must be done with a RED PEN 
Center 3: Match Solutions to Equations
· Students will match and connect all equations on the left side with the solutions on the right side. · Make sure to utilize your white board and marker to break down all equations. · There is one solution for every equation, make sure each one is matched up. 
Center 4: Kaboom
· During the Game of KABOOM, students will practice some of the concepts that they’ve learned throughout this review week · Everyone should be having fun at this station! Do not ruin it by getting into petty arguments about the game! · Once the timer is up and Mr. JB tells you to transition, the team manager will come to the front and write down the name of the winner! JUDGE:________________________________________________ 
Center 5: Exponent and Square Root Review Work
· At this station use the Real Numbers chart to answer all multiple choice questions. · Next to each multiple choice question you are responsible for WRITING ONE SENTENCE explaining how you know your answer is correct. 
EXTRA SUDOKU WORK IF YOU FINISH EARLY!!!!!
Types of centers in my classroom
There is an endless amount of ideas for centers that teachers can use to help develop your students as Math Scholars. Kaboom is an awesome fast paced game for students to focus on correcting common computational errors by incentivizing it with the creation of a board game. This Center is not used to have students produce lengthy justifications for their work. Instead this game exists to give students speedy remediation that will hopefully help with reoccurring computational issues going forward.
The following are directions for the game Kaboom that is huge success within my class! I would tape these directions at the table for Kaboom
Students at table 4 will play a game of Kaboom!

The team leader will serve as the judge during all games of Kaboom!

During Kaboom, students will take turns pulling strips from the KABOOM box

The judge will have the answer key. If a student gets a question right they get to keep their strip. If they get it wrong the strip goes in the middle and nobody gets it.

If Students get the “KABOOM” strip, they must put all of the strips that they have

The student with the most strips at the end of the center time wins!

Judges must keep track of who wins and at the end of each game write the winners name on the board

Each game of Kaboom will last for 7 minutes.

No one is allowed to argue with the judge.

Winners of Kaboom will each win a piece of candy.
When filling Kaboom Cans with questions it is important that it contains multiple choice questions that are not too intricate. This is supposed to be a fast paced game so I would just fill the cans with questions that are purely remedial like the four below. I’d fill each can with about 18 questions.
The judge will be given an answer key as followed. To save you some time, I would just look up multiple choice questions from the internet and just use those questions. The answer key will probably be made available on whatever site you get the questions from.
The special strips that add an element of luck are as followed. I would include about four of each of the following four strips.
Kaboom is an awesome game, just make sure you behavior narrate and make your expectations explicitly clear at all times. Things can get dicey during competition, especially when pride/candy is on the line. With that being said, this is a great activity to get student to focus on sources of common mistakes.
Getting students to work on error analysis is really important in my class because it allows students to recognize common patterns and traps that they are falling into! Essentially the student becomes the teacher! Error Analysis really helps to develop students as metacognitive thinkers. I use this Station get my students to point out some of the common mistakes that they make on Exit Tickets and have discussions with each other about the work. This is a copy of the blank center page.
And here is a copy of the same student work filled out by one of my students with his corrections on it.
The last center that I used this week was a matching activity in which students had to match solutions to corresponding equations. I made it up myself and it encouraged great discussion amongst students about the material.
Also, you should have an extra activity at the end of the Centers packet for higher students who finish their assignment/packet early. This extra activity isn’t just supposed to be something “extra” that kids can do, but instead it serves the purpose of ensuring that students who finish early have something to do to ensure that they are not distracting others. Usually I include more difficult problems at the end, but sometimes I put a Sudoku at the end of the packet as a special challenge to students and if they are able to finish one, I give them a bag of hot chips .Just don’t let students access any computers with the Sudoku or they will look up the answers like my student Lyric did one time.
In conclusion, Centers can be a great way for students to have fun in your class while developing themselves as math learners. The more diverse and flushed out your centers are the higher chance there is for success! Make sure that your directions are incredibly explicit and that you are constantly moving throughout the classroom while behavior narrating. Do not use centers too often in your class because if the appeal wears off then students can get bored/apathetic really quick. I try to pull it off once or twice a month at most!
On Thursday, 11/19 I plan on rolling out a Centers session in Cleveland in which you will go through and participate in some of the Centers that were talked about within this Blog Post! Please register on the course catalog and attend if you need any help developing these, and please reach out with any questions, comments, or concerns about the integrating Centers into your Math Classroom!
During my first year of teaching, I constantly thought things like, “I can’t wait until next year so I can try this differently” or “I need to prioritize this more next year.” Honestly, I haven’t followed through on everything, but something that has been very rewarding in my classroom is more regular use of ThreeAct Math lessons. These types of lessons allow every single one of my students to engage with the material and leave the classroom feeling like they made a meaningful contribution.
I begin the lesson by showing the students a picture or a short video clip, and simply asking them to write down what they noticed and any questions they have. I make sure to take the time to write down every thought that my students share, because this validation early on in the lesson really gives them the momentum to grapple with the math later on. I love seeing my lowerachieving students, who are normally a bit uninterested during my lessons, shooting their hands into the air to share their thoughts. And even though there is a low entry point for everyone, I always have a handful of students who begin to lead us toward the important mathematical concepts. After considering all of the students’ questions, I present them with the main question we’ll be answering and ask for their answers.
I love this part of the lesson because I really get to see my students start to make sense of the mathematics. It’s also the point where students begin to notice that they don’t have all of the information they need to fully answer our main question. In other words, they start to get those headaches. It’s only after students articulate what information is missing that I fill in those gaps and present the Tylenol. I then allow them to discuss with a partner or two to work toward a solution.
I have found that managing this group work in a ThreeAct Math lesson is easier than managing my class in more typical lessons. Because I make sure that I begin with an intriguing stimulus, and take the time early in the lesson to place an importance on the students’ voices, they are very invested and eager to work toward a solution. Again, even my lower students are engaged after experiencing success early on. ThreeAct Math lessons are the best way that I have found to foster meaningful student discussion and create an accessible environment for everyone in my classroom.
Below, Davis Parker (Mississippi ’15, Cleveland High School), shares how he has used performance tasks to build student metacognition – how students think about their mathematical thinking. Davis talks about the intentionality behind his design, execution, and feedback around a recent performance task. I love the feedback activity that he does with students which allows them to not only understand their own rubric rating, but to also use peer responses to grow in their understanding of what great mathematical thinking and communication looks like. Read on below!
(Note – Davis refers to the QUASAR rubric throughout his post)
The assignment:
 Students were given a performance task to gauge their ability to work creatively with absolute value functions.
 In approaching the assignment, I wanted to create a task that gave students significant room for creativity, strategic thinking, and communication. I wanted it to be Mathlite, requiring as little number crunching and slick computation as possible, but allowing students to showcase their reasoning and problem solving skills.
 The first question set the table for the entire assessment and allowed a low floor for students to enter. It read as follows: “Drake and Meek Mill decide to climb a mountain to settle their differences. Draw a graph that could represent their altitude (y) as a function of time (x). Explain your reasoning in complete sentences.”
 On this question, students received points for drawing a hill/mountain looking graph and articulating the reasoning behind their graph. While it was hard to differentiate between math and strategic knowledge on this question, I gave students math knowledge credit if they properly interpreted the meaning of x and yintercepts. With regards to strategic knowledge, students received credit for drawing a graph that could be interpreted (in some way or another) as the trajectory of people climbing a mountain. Ultimately, a student’s strategy was only as good as his/her ability to explain it.
 If students drew a linear equation but gave sufficient explanation that Drake and Meek Mill never came down (or that they didn’t return on the graph), I gave them points.
 Students were docked for graphs that didn’t begin at the origin or somewhere along the xaxis.
 The second question gave students a specific function (y= 2x4+8) to model their path and asked, “how high is [Drake and Meek Mill’s] peak? How long does it take them to reach the peak? How long does it take for them to climb the mountain? Explain your reasoning in complete sentences.”
 Points were given for an accurate graphical representation of the function as well as correctly identifying the peak height (8), peak time (4), and total climb time (8).
 The third question forced students to transition from mathematical knowledge (graphing, vertex, etc.) to more strategic knowledge by asking, “At altitudes greater than 6km, Drake needs to use his inhaler 3x/hour. Meanwhile, at altitudes greater than 7km, Meek Mill needs to use his inhaler 5x/hour. Who uses his inhaler more during the hike?”
 This question forces students to navigate through two distinct measurements (time and distance) on their graph. While the altitude deals the yaxis of the graph, the real question lies on the xaxis with the time. An ideal student would recognize that the number of inhaler uses is dependent on hours, not necessarily kilometers
 The last question was meant to showcase students communicative and strategic understanding by asking them whose asthma is worse, Drake or Meek Mill?
 The key aspect of this question is that there is no correct answer. While Drake has to use his inhaler at lower altitudes, MM has to use his inhaler more often. It allows students to approach the question from either side and still come to a strong, evidence based conclusion.
The execution:
 The most common complaint from students was, “I’ve never done anything like this before! Is this even math?” It seems they’d been trained to think math was 100% worksheets and computations.
 On a surprising yet positive note, the students outperformed their average quiz score on this assessment, which strikes me as proof that they have underutilized mathematical skills in the way of strategy and communication.
 The key was keeping students engaged in the problem and having them work through the whole sheet (1 page frontandback). As the bookend questions required zero mathematical knowledge, even the most struggling student could gain considerable credit if he/she simply finished the quiz. Lastly, including popular culture figures allowed them to feel as if they had an actual opinion on the question at hand. You’d be surprised how many students took the time to confirm that Drake was the superior MC to MM.
The grading:
 First question (MK: 1, SK: 1, C: 1)
 The most important aspect of grading question #1 was making sure whatever the student graphed and whatever the student wrote reinforced each other. In the case of student #1 (part A), I docked communication points for a weak explanation. While the slope does in fact increase then decrease, the student failed to connect his reasoning to the original problem. Meanwhile, student #2 (part A) gives sufficient explanation for his graph by relating the vertex to the mountain peak and identifying the variables x and y.
 Second question (MK: 2, SK: 1, C: 1)
 This was the most math intensive question of the quiz as it forced students to graph an absolute value function accurately and interpret the results of the graph. The key aspects of the graph were the vertex and xintercepts. Most students were able to accurately place the vertex, yet many struggled to properly slope their function such that it intersected the xaxis at 0 and 8. Students who failed to do this (student #4, A) lost significant mathematical knowledge credit. From a strategic perspective, students were rewarded for first identifying the vertex then graphing from that point. Additionally, they received credit for properly interpreting the zeros and vertex of the function.
 Third question: (MK: 1, SK: 1, C: 1)
 Students received mathematical knowledge points for relating the xaxis on the previous graph to the yaxis. The question forced them to take a yaxis measurement (altitude) and convert it to an xaxis measurement (time). Students who properly did this and performed computations correctly received full points for their work (student #2, B). From a strategic perspective, students received credit for understanding the need to multiply each individual rapper’s rate by the time above a certain altitude. Even if they incorrectly identified these values, they received points for their strategy (student #4, B). Some students had great strategy and math but had weak communication (student #3, B). These students received points for their thinking and computation but very little for communication, as they didn’t effectively explain their thinking or answer the question. Student #1 had a very interesting answer here because he knew to multiply the given rates by some fixed value, but he incorrectly used the altitude instead of the time. Here, he received ½ credit for strategy and close to full credit for communication, as his reasoning is quite clear.
 Fourth question: (SK: 1, C: 1)
 Students received credit for clearly articulating an opinion based on results from Q3. Some students received little to credit (student #3, B), while others (student #1, B) received close to full credit, even if they had incorrect conclusions for Q3. The key to Q4 was having a logicbased opinion that was built off the answer to Q3. Even if a student didn’t answer Q3, they received credit for saying that Drake has to begin using his inhaler earlier or that MM has to use his more. There was no right or wrong answer, just good and bad reasoning.
Student responses
 Student #1

 Across all classes, student #1 was considered to be the worst of the example. What stood out was his poor reasoning and especially poor communication. A common response was, “do people really talk like that?” Fortunately, student #1 didn’t exist and was an answer sheet I filled out with common mistakes. I would strongly encourage other teachers to do something similar if they are trying to show common mistakes.
 Score: MK: 1.5, SK: 2, C: 1.5
 Across all classes, student #1 was considered to be the worst of the example. What stood out was his poor reasoning and especially poor communication. A common response was, “do people really talk like that?” Fortunately, student #1 didn’t exist and was an answer sheet I filled out with common mistakes. I would strongly encourage other teachers to do something similar if they are trying to show common mistakes.
 Student #2

 Just as student #1 was considered the worst, student #2 was generally considered the cream of the crop. Students appreciated his clear writing style and mathematical computation.
 Score: MK: 4, SK: 4, C: 4
 Just as student #1 was considered the worst, student #2 was generally considered the cream of the crop. Students appreciated his clear writing style and mathematical computation.
 Student #3

 Student #3 was by far the most interesting case. Most students gave him low marks, as they were put off by his poor communication style. What they didn’t recognize was the strength of his reasoning and math skills. For instance, on Q3 he does a terrific job strategizing and drawing a model of when each rapper would use his inhaler (as well as the total # of uses). Student #3 clearly has solid mathematical reasoning, yet it is hidden behind a veneer of sloppy language and organization. He’s like a raw athlete: great potential but very little polish. In fact, this assessment helped identify him as a student who could very well be pushed to not only become a good mathematician but an outstanding one.
 Score: MK: 3.5, SK: 3, C: 1.5
 Student #3 was by far the most interesting case. Most students gave him low marks, as they were put off by his poor communication style. What they didn’t recognize was the strength of his reasoning and math skills. For instance, on Q3 he does a terrific job strategizing and drawing a model of when each rapper would use his inhaler (as well as the total # of uses). Student #3 clearly has solid mathematical reasoning, yet it is hidden behind a veneer of sloppy language and organization. He’s like a raw athlete: great potential but very little polish. In fact, this assessment helped identify him as a student who could very well be pushed to not only become a good mathematician but an outstanding one.
 Student #4

 Student #4 received better reviews from her peers than her teacher. Her organized graphs and clear writing were convincing indicators of her knowledge, yet she had significant struggles with her graphs. On all 3, her graphs incorrectly intersect the xaxis, and she misinterprets her previous graph on Q3. To be fair, her errors on Q1 and Q2 were more than likely a result of sloppiness than ignorance, yet she ended up receiving roughly the same score as student #3. What makes that result so interesting is that students #3 and #4 received the score for almost the exact opposite reasons. While one was an effective communicator, the other struggled mightily. While #3 had accurate graphs and strategy, #4 missed the mark. The key is that they both have terrific potential in mathematics, but that they need distinctly different practice going forward.
 Score: MK: 2, SK: 3, C: 4
 Student #4 received better reviews from her peers than her teacher. Her organized graphs and clear writing were convincing indicators of her knowledge, yet she had significant struggles with her graphs. On all 3, her graphs incorrectly intersect the xaxis, and she misinterprets her previous graph on Q3. To be fair, her errors on Q1 and Q2 were more than likely a result of sloppiness than ignorance, yet she ended up receiving roughly the same score as student #3. What makes that result so interesting is that students #3 and #4 received the score for almost the exact opposite reasons. While one was an effective communicator, the other struggled mightily. While #3 had accurate graphs and strategy, #4 missed the mark. The key is that they both have terrific potential in mathematics, but that they need distinctly different practice going forward.
Performance Tasks are extremely valuable, if only because they break the monotony that Math class can become. They also allow every student to show off what they can do, as opposed to primarily punishing them for what they can’t. Going forward, I want to keep the PT structure of bookending the assignment with more qualitative, opinion based questions that provide students with low barriers to entry. Additionally, I think exposing the students to the QUASAR rubric is productive because it allows them to see behind the curtain and understand what exactly I am look for as a teacher. In fact, I don’t plan on taking my upcoming PT up for a grade but rather have students grade their peers and give them valuable feedback. Lastly, I’d encourage other teachers (and myself) to do their best to keep students engaged with the assessment through its entirety. Students often surprise themselves (and their teachers!) with how much they do in fact know.
I hope this review has been helpful, and please leave comments below if you have any questions.
Best,
Davis
What’s in this post:
 Why mathematical modeling is super important in tearing down “country club” mathematics
 An example lesson I taught that incorporating the modeling cycle
 All of the resources from that lesson.
Before Our Students Can Persevere, We Need to Trust Them
Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them. That’s the first Standard of Mathematical Practice in the Common Core, and for good reason. Perseverance is fundamental to mathematics – you need to give the content a chance if you are ever going to uncover its essential understandings. While it is easy to pin this off on students for not engaging (how dare you not persevere! I spent a lot of time last night coming up with this activity!), us math teachers actually have the greatest impact on our student’s math agency.
Many of our students suffer from a deep anxiety of mathematics, and this leads to otherwise competent students performing poorly simply because of their anxiety. This is compounded with students of color and women, where stereotype threat adds another barrier between capability and performance. And here’s the catch: “traditional” teaching techniques amplify math anxiety. Dan Meyer talks about “country club mathematics,” where students are implicitly and explicitly told that math means to “…calculate quickly and accurately with memorized formulas…and then raise your hand politely.” This is fine if you are a member of the country club, but alienating for those who are locked outside. When you imagine such disempowerment compounding across a dozen years and thousands of daily experiences with school mathematics, it’s suddenly not very surprising that many students (especially students of color and women) have no will to persevere with mathematics. Their attitude has absolutely nothing to do with competency. It has everything to do with our willful exclusivity.
So let’s break down the country club walls. Lucky for us, we have a bulldozer ready and waiting – our humble friend mathematical modeling. Here is how the modeling cycle is defined in Common Core (thanks to Dan Meyer and Felton, Anhalt, and Cortez for laying this out so nicely):
 Make sense of a situation
 Create a model to solve the problem
 Compute a solution with this model
 Interpret what those results mean in context
 Check the validity of your solution (and, if that fails, go back to step 1 or 2)
 Share your conclusions and reasoning
The “traditional” approach often jumps immediately to step 3 – we tell students “here, I put all of the information for you into this nice block of text. And here is the equation you should use. Just plug in that information correctly and spit out an answer. And don’t forget your units!” Stop! That’s not how the real world works!
The Modeling Cycle in Action
In order to try out the modeling cycle, especially how students first react to such instruction, I headed to Ruleville Middle School. In Ruleville I partnered with Scotty JeanBaptiste and some of his incredible 8^{th} grade students. The task that I implemented was based on the “Water Conservation” task detailed in this article from MTMS. I adapted the task into a “Developing the Question” structure which Dan Meyer demonstrated during his CHAMPS presentation last year (please, Mr. Meyer, come back to Mississippi!). Below I have detailed each part of this lesson and the student responses. I was impressed with the ability of Scotty’s students to go from hesitant, to curious, to exploratory with this unfamiliar structure which countered country club mathematics. You can see the raw data of their responses here.
 Make Sense of a situation.
To begin I introduced myself to students and let them know that I was going to show them part of a video I had recorded that week (I realized afterwards that Mr. Meyer already had a similar ThreeAct Math task already designed – womp).I also handed out a super minimal worksheet with 6 “boxes” for us to organize our thoughts throughout the process. We watched the first few seconds of this video, which showed a splitscreen of my bathtub filling up from the faucet (top) and from the showerhead (bottom). I then stopped the video and asked students “What are you wondering? What questions do you have?” They filled their responses into the first box of their worksheet. Given that students had not experienced the modeling cycle before (or at least this year), they were understandably caught off guard – this isn’t how math lessons work!
I had students share their responses, wrote these on the board, and asked who else was wondering something similar. This gave me a bank of studentgenerated questions that we could come back to again at the conclusion of the lesson. It also served as a point of affirmation, where students saw that they weren’t alone in their thinking.
But we did have a specific question to address, and so in the second box I had students write our question of the day: Which uses more water, a shower or a bath? We immediately followed this up by coming up with an initial guess and justification. Where did the students stand on this? We had an even split (and nobody saying that it depends).
I let students share out some of their justifications, which showed a lot of nuance for the context. Many in the shower group justified their response with the fact that the shower only “trickles” water, while the bath group countered by saying that you run the bath once and then you’re done.
 Create a model to solve the problem
The fourth box is my favorite, and really determines the direction of the task. I asked students “well, what do you want to know?” This part of the cycle is vital because it students are elevated as factfinders and creators of knowledge. Students, rather than teachers, get to determine what variables we should consider for our model. We teachers are often terrified to do this since we worry that students won’t provide the “right” variables or will draw complete blanks, but I challenge us to take a backseat and try this out. Given students a chance to be knowledgecreators. Even though they had never engaged in a modeling activity before, the students in my lesson came up with some pretty spoton answers about what we needed to know.
Now, with more time I would have students actually get on computers (or I could do this from the front board) to try and find answers to these questions. For the “time to take a shower or bath” they could even conduct a student poll and average their results. There are lots of directions to go here. In anticipating these variables, and knowing that I had a limited class time to conduct the task, I had already pulled some different sources, including actually revealing the full “word problem” version of the water conservation task.
 Compute a solution with this model
 Interpret what those results mean in context
We discussed this for a bit and then I let students have at it. I encouraged them to use the back of their papers and their whiteboards to sketch out their work, and then to use box 5 for their final conclusion and explanation.
It was a blast. One group settled on an average of a 15 minute shower while the other used 30 minutes as their average. Given that one of the students said she took 45 minute showers (she was a really big proponent of Team Shower), I encouraged them to see how a 45 minute shower average would change their results. Students suddenly started to realize that their results really depended on a lot of different things (our variables!). As groups began to stumble upon this realization, I began asking “how long would the shower have to be in order to use more water than a bath?” since that was ultimately what I wanted us to validate with our video from the beginning.
 Check the validity of your solution (and, if that fails, go back to step 1 or 2)
 Share your conclusions and reasoning
We had about 1015 minutes of exploration before I pulled the groups together and had each one share. I loved that students had used different shower lengths for their model, since that allowed us to really have a discussion about how those variables impacted their results. In a perfect world this is where I would have wanted them to go back and refine their answers – their conclusions were from before they discussed with other groups. However, time was running out and so we moved on. I was happy that a majority of the class had changed their mind from their original views – 75 percent had referenced on their worksheet that different variables result in different results (although only four fully responded in writing to the original question comparing baths and the showers).
We went back to our original video and I asked students to make a prediction about how long the shower will take to fill up the bathtub. Again, in a perfect world we would have tackled this specific question collaboratively in box 6 instead of me quickly having them estimate, but time was short. Regardless, they seemed to enjoy watching the timelapse, especially as we approached and then passed more and more predictions. The students I spoke with afterwards really appreciated how different it was from their typical perception of math lessons. “Other teachers just tell,” one student said, “but you had evidence.”
This was the first time (at least to my, Scotty, or the students’ knowledge) that they had engaged in a modeling lesson. Concerns of management, timing, and control often keep us teachers from ceding control of thinking to our students, but this is an absolute necessity if we ever expect them to persevere and overcome challenges. “Nobody rises to low expectations” as the old saying goes. Our students not only have the potential to meet and exceed high expectations, they have a right to do so. It is time to tear down the country club walls and give all of our students the opportunity to succeed.
All of the Resources
My PowerPoint (I’m telling you, it is barebones. We don’t need a fancy presentation when our focus is on student thinking and discussion)
An explanation of the Worksheet (ditto.)
Dan Meyer’s version of the shower versus bathtub comparison
MTMS article that includes the Water Conservation task and discusses the modeling cycle
Culturally responsive teaching in mathematics – good in theory, impossible in practice? Time and again teachers feel overwhelmed by the idea of CRT in practice. It’s not that we don’t value critical dialogue with our students, but it often seems daunting in addition to the standards we are expected to teach in a given school year. How can we access critical and community knowledge when we get so caught up on the classical math knowledge?
The key is to integrate multiple banks of knowledge into instruction. In the following task on experimental and theoretical probability, students are asked to not only understand the math terms and processes, but to explore the intersection of their lived experience and the content. Megan Lonsdale (Mississippi 2013) recently conducted the task with her classroom and reflected on the experience below. Before considering her reflections, I encourage you to look at the following guiding documents and artifacts:
 The lesson plan (the original version and a version that I have annotated with how equitable practices from The Impact of Identity in K8 Mathematics) – also note that the original MegaMillions activity came from Rethinking Mathematics.
 The student handouts that Megan created.
 Take a look at student work samples (1, 2) from the task as well as letters that students wrote to their representatives stating their position on a state lottery.
Why did you choose this task? Why is this sort of task important for students to engage with in Byhalia and elsewhere?
Megan: I chose this task because we had just started the probability unit and I had noticed that my students were struggling to understand the difference between theoretical and experimental probability. I wanted a task that would not only help them see the difference but a task that would also spike their interest and get them excited to talk about the differences that they see and how probability can help us interpret the world around us. Before starting the task I actually had no idea that the state of Mississippi didn’t have a state lottery. I was interested to hear that since my students are located so close to Memphis, this was not something a lot of them had realized as well. This sort of task is so important for students to engage in because math doesn’t just exist in the classroom. Math can help us interpret the world around us and help students develop a social consciousness. I want my students to be able to leave my classroom with not only a better understanding of math but as critical thinkers.
How did the task go? How does it compare to other tasks or activities students have engaged with? What have you learned from this experience?
The task went well. I had a great time doing this activity with students and the reflections I received from students were also positive. I enjoyed showing students that math exists beyond the classroom walls and I definitely want to do that more often. I think one of the major differences with this task and other tasks I have used in my classroom is how relevant this was to my students lives. Even though I have used plenty of handson activities and different tasks in my class, nothing I have used has been this relevant and this Mississippi. My students were engaged and thoughtful and since they were more engaged and interested in the work, my students were better able to interpret the difference between theoretical and experimental probability. I learned that it is so important to use tasks that are engaging
What did the task tell you about students? What didn’t it tell you?
I went to several PDs about CRT this week so one of the major things I noticed about this task was the lens in which my students view the worlds and the lens (or window in the case of the article I read for Teaching Beyond Black and White) that I view my students in. One thing that really stuck out to me was after reading the article about how the lottery preys on the poor, a lot of my students made comments about how horrible it was that it lottery preyed on the poor but I noticed that my students did not associate themselves with being poor. Even though the majority of my students meet the federal requirements for free and reduced lunch and would be considered poor, it is all about the lens in which we view the world. My students do not view themselves as poor because (I am assuming based on conversations with students) that they’re doing okay. They have what they need and they have met people with much less. I had to take a moment to consider the lens in which I was viewing my students since their statements after reading this article were definitely shocking to me.
Where do you want to go from here?
I want to incorporate many more tasks like this in my classroom since this was a great success. My students not only got a better understanding for the difference between theoretical and experimental probability but it gave students a voice in legislation that could potentially impact the state of Mississippi. This task taught my students an important lesson that math is extremely valuable in analyzing the world around you and being able to form an opinion and justify that opinion with facts.
This has been a whirlwind of a quarter, packed with math community days, PARCC PBA prepping, and crazy weather. As those of you at the math extravaganza are aware, this is also the time when I will be analyzing Q3 data to determine Q4 priorities and support. We had a great conversation about the data at the extravaganza, but I wanted to make sure that everyone has a chance to see how we’re doing heading into the last quarter of the year. If you’re interested in understanding where the data below comes from, I recommend you take a look at our Q2 stepback. Otherwise, if you’re good with your lingo (ERC, COA, PK, and so on) then let me share where our math cohort stands.
Data Point #1: Progress Known
 What is Progress Known (PK)?
PK is basically a “Yes” or “No” answer to the question: “do we have reliable and complete data on where students stand in this classroom?”
 How do you collect reliable and complete data?
The reliable and complete data comes from our teachers sharing it with their TLD Coach and/or Content Specialist. As long as you have data for student progress on ALL of your Metrics – you must have data on content mastery and mathematical thinking (performance tasks) – and we have seen that your assessments are reliable, then your students are PK!
 What does the PK data tell us going into Q4?
Our PK has increased by 5% in mathematics, but remains frighteningly low (especially going into Q4). Our biggest growth has been with middle school and upper elementary, which leads me to believe that the PARCC PBA that is now underway encouraged more teachers to prepare students with performance tasks. As we can see, high school math classrooms are where this is lower, which could be an indicator that, without the explicit connection of a modern high stakes test (outside of Algebra I), there is not as much immediate incentive for performance tasks. The biggest fear on my end is an overreliance on ACT prep, while not balancing this with the sort of complex tasks that students would actually need in college. That balance between the realities of standardized tests versus the importance of rich tasks that allow sharing and feedback on mathematical thinking is at the center of many of our Q4 course offerings (more below).
Overall, there does seem to be the case that some classrooms are giving rich math tasks to explore with students, but we might not be fully sharing and analyzing the data with TLD Coaches.
As we can see to the right, we have about 40% of classes that actually are engaging in analysis/application/explaining but are not progress known. As I have said before, if you can give feedback on mathematical thinking and strategy, then a question can be assessed as a performance task. This means that any class that is analyzing, applying, or explaining math is engaging with performance tasks! So those 40% of progress unknown classes are either not tracking data to provide students with growthoriented data OR this data has not been shared with TLD Coaches and myself. That is a big gap that is holding our cohort back from PK. Something else I found interesting is the following graph…
Here you can see that classrooms are more than three times as likely to be PK and interested/hardworking than not PK and interested/hardworking, while the majority of our nonPK (which again mostly means we do not have performance task data for mathematical thinking feedback) classrooms are stuck as merely compliant and ontask. One theory that this correlation tells me is that students are not as likely to be developing positive math identities in classrooms where they are not getting growthoriented performance task feedback, and so it only makes sense that if this baseline data point of content mastery and mathematical thinking growth is not established, students are less likely to show interest in the content. After all, as Julia Aguirre et al. say in The Impact of Identity in K8 Mathematics, “Feedback (in math) tends to accentuate what students do not know and cannot do, thus leading them to believe that they are ‘not smart,’ lack ability, or cannot learn.” While much of the content in Q3 focused on how to conduct lessons conducive to performance task data and how to give empowering feedback for this, Q4 will double down especially on the instructional side – I want to make sure that teachers feel empowered themselves to take on these pedagogical habits, techniques, and mindsets in their classrooms.
“Feedback (in math) tends to accentuate what students do not know and cannot do, thus leading them to believe that they are ‘not smart,’ lack ability, or cannot learn.” – Aguirre et al., The Impact of Identity in K8 Mathematics
Data Point #2: Culture of Achievement
 What is Culture of Achievement (CoA)?
CoA is the quality of the classroom culture that your students enjoy as they are learning. Some people think immediately about “management” but CoA goes well beyond that: it’s the way in which your students actively maintain and foster a positive environment because of the way they care about their learning.
 How do you collect data around CoA?
CoA is determined by the TLD Coach in collaboration with your thinking after an observation, using the Culture of Achievement Pathways rubric to inform our terminology. This then gets collected in our Program Tracker so we can analyze the data at different levels.
 What does the CoA data tell us going into Q4?
Our math teachers have exploded onto the scene with a huge increase in interested/hardworking classrooms, while destructive classrooms are a thing of the past and apathetic/unruly classrooms are greatly decreasing. Just to drive home the changes from end of Q2 to end of Q3, here’s a look at just how much our COA changed:
Our middle school teachers (who again also had the greatest jump in PK) had the biggest increase in interested/hardworking classrooms while all lower bands for COA decreased. However all of our grade bands are seeing shifts upwards in COA. I can’t wait to hear how teachers take full advantages of this growing positive culture to make gains with their students this last quarter of school.
Data Point #3: Engagement with Rigorous Content (ERC)
 What is Engagement with Rigorous Content (ERC)?
ERC is the level of rigor at which students are engaging with the content. Some people think immediately about “difficulty” of the questions being asked by the teacher, but this goes well beyond that: it’s the depth and sophistication with which students are thinking about and working within the content.
 How do you collect data around ERC?
ERC is determined by the TLD Coach in collaboration with your thinking after an observation, using the Engagement with Rigorous Content rubric to inform our terminology. This then gets collected in our Program Tracker so we can analyze the data at different levels.
 What does the ERC data tell us going into Q4?
Like COA, our teachers are showing a lot of growth in ERC, with analysis/application/explaining increasing 18% while all lower bands showed a decrease. I’m hoping for an even greater increase in Q4 as we offer lots of opportunities to plan, instruct, and get feedback on lessons that encourage greater student ownership of mathematical problemsolving.
It’s worth noting that every grade band saw doubledigit growth in analysis/application/explaining While the number of passive or confused classrooms dropped to single digits. I can’t to see the incredible work our teachers do with this strength going into Q4.
Forward into Q4
Based on all of the data above, as well as data from the midyear survey (which was discussed more indepth at the math extravaganza), observations, and conversations with teachers and coaches, the following are our priorities for Q4 in math.
Head over to the PD Page of our Professional Development website to see what sessions will be driving towards these priorities, and sign up for them!
So what are your thoughts? What resonates with you about this data, these priorities, and these upcoming experiences? What else do you see in the data and in your own classroom? Fire off below!
Patterns from ideas
“A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.”
– G.H. Hardy
It is a tragedy that mathematics is seen as anything but empowering and anything but beautiful. Painters might try to express an idea through the visual, and poets through language, but mathematics take the opposite approach. In mathematics, the ideas and questions derive the patterns and tools. And so, while aesthetic appeals and written norms shift over time or run into barriers of culture and language, mathematical ideas persist above the fray. Mathematics is incredible because it is adaptable, and uniquely human.
For instance, we can suggest the idea that things with seemingly different attributes can hold a unifying relationship (or pose the question “is there any way to compare circumstances that hold different values?”). Well, one man may give 2 of his 20 pieces of silver, and another man 5 of his 50 pieces of silver, but we say that – despite their different circumstances – both men have tithed. Why? It is because 2 and 20 can be found to have a unifying relationship with 5 and 50 – the same ratio of 1:10. See how this idea persists and this question is addressed: the Greeks encoded the idea of an ideal, “golden ratio” into the Parthenon (and as such the golden ratio now goes by φ, or phi, in honor of the sculptor who supposedly built the statues there), Leonardo da Vinci illustrated de divina proportione, and today we seem to find this ratio occurring naturally in the depths of the seas and the vastness of the cosmos above.
We look to ourselves and decry injustice since we do not find a unifying relationship when comparing the rates of incarcerated black and Latino men with that of white men. We debate the equity of taxes: should tax rates hold a constant ratio regardless of total income, or should the ratio of costofliving to total income be elevated as a more important consideration? Values may evolve, language may change, but mathematical ideas and their compelling questions remain as focal points surrounded by such everchanging patterns and conclusions. How incredible it is that humans can discern and communicate these patterns that exist all around us.
Mathematics is not compelling and it is our fault
Yet much of modern mathematics education subverts the natural flow from mathematical idea to mathematical pattern, tool, or conclusion. In fact, teachers often forget that there is even a compelling math idea or question that spins the wheel of mathematical intrigue. We simply hold up the derived pattern or tool and expect our students to marvel at its usefulness.
Think of it like this – if you were to explain Superman to me by showing him turning back time by spinning the Earth backwards (or traveling faster than the speed of light, whatever you believe), what would be the result?
Besides taking some issue with the physics involved, I’d probably end up with more questions than when we started (wait, so this guy can fly? In space? He hallucinates voices from clouds? What’s with the spandex?). If I like you I might take your word for why Superman is great – “alright, so he has super powers that he uses to save people,” but I’m certainly not compelled by Superman or see what he has to do with, well, anything.
This is one reason why superhero movies always have the origin story – so that we can understand the implications of the hero’s actions and can relate to them as characters. It ups the stakes of the climax in act 3 of the story, and ensures we’re really rooting for our hero to win. If I actually get to watch the entirety of Superman then I’ll find the ideas of loneliness and duty and love. If I understand the context, the significance of what Superman does here (going against the ethereal voice of his biological father JorEl and instead following the advice of his “Earth father” Jonathan Kent to turn back time and save Lois Lane) is incredibly more compelling. Superman turning back time simply becomes a tool to answer the actually meaningful question of “when should we follow rules? Who should we listen to when two rules conflict?”
Math lessons are often akin to showing students Superman flying around the Earth and expecting them to simply appreciate the significance of this moment. It is no wonder that students feel intimidated, disengaged, and disinvested in the beauty of mathematics. From my observations in math classrooms this quarter here is a sample of quotes I have collected from students in response to the question “What is your favorite subject? Why?” and if it wasn’t math, “What keeps math from being your favorite?”:
“I don’t like measurement because there is too much to do.”
“I don’t like equations because they’re confusing.”
“I like science more than math because I get to make stuff.”
“I like math because I’m good at addition.”
“I like math because I like counting.”
“I liked algebra because it was the basics. This (geometry) is harder.”
“I never liked math because all of those numbers.”
“I like science because I get to explore things.”
“I like science because we get to create things.”
“I like social studies because I can learn about different people and my ancestors.”
I get some of the following themes from these and other quotes…
So how can mathematics compel students?
Just like good storytelling, there isn’t one answer to the question of “how do we make this compelling?” Luckily there have been some incredible folks who have put a ton of work already into answering this (I’ll bring in the work of Stanford/Jo Boaler, Dan Meyer, Grace Chen, Rico Gutstein, and others), and I have leaned on some common threads in their incredible work to start constructing a framework. Repeatedly we see that conceptual, ideadriven planning empowers and compels students in learning mathematics. In my next post I will discuss how to construct lessons from a mathematical idea in greater detail, but as a preview the general framework I have sketched out is as follows:
 Gather Kindling
 Define a compelling question/problem that the mathematical idea addresses/overcomes.
 Define how students will demonstrate application of the mathematical idea to address/overcome the compelling question/problem.
 Sketch the intermediate knowledge, skills, language, and reasoning that bridge the question/problem and the answer/solution.
 Set a Spark
 Access cultural, academic, and/or critical student knowledge to spark students’ connection to the compelling question/problem.
 Ignite the Fire
 Present opportunities for students to construct new knowledge about the mathematical idea(s) that addresses the compelling question/problem.
 Fan the Flames
 Present opportunities for students to apply new knowledge to address the compelling question/problem.
 Present opportunities for students to extend or connect new knowledge towards other compelling questions/problems.
 Present assessment opportunity for students to demonstrate application of the mathematical idea in answering the compelling question/problem.
 Provide some form of resolution to the compelling question/problem and set up a future problem.
I look forward to sharing some of the what, how, and why of the above framework with you all in the next post.
The spotlight in Q3 goes to Kristina Alekseyeva and her middle school math classes in Holmes County. In the Fall semester she completed a virtual course through Stanford University and designed by Jo Boaler. She then incorporated what she learned and is now sharing her results. The strategies she has implemented align well with our mathematics vision, especially in regards to computational fluency, solving complex problems, and making and critiquing mathematical arguments. I strongly encourage you to consider how these practices can strengthen your own classroom, and to reach out to Kristina if you have additional questions!
Read Kristina’s reflections below! 
Hi All,
My name is Kristina Alekseyeva and I teach 68 grade math in Holmes County, MS. These nine weeks I was lucky enough to participate in an amazing online class dedicated to increasing student confidence and engagement in a math class. In this blog I would like to take this opportunity to share some of the course insights with you. I would like to start off by saying that the information in this class was actually helpful to improving my class performance and attitude – something that differentiates this class from so many others that only seem applicable in places where students are mostly on pace. Some of the most dramatic results for my students were getting more confident in math and becoming open about sharing their mistakes. Another result was getting students to actually ask “Why?” in the classroom. There were several themes in the course that I believe helped me achieve these results. In the next paragraphs, I would like to tell you about the ones I found most helpful. One of the main ideas that I have learned through this class is that simply saying that “I love mistakes” to my students won’t necessarily get the message across. What I need to do is to implement correcting mistakes and celebrating mistakes into my daily routine. For example, giving points back for correcting quizzes and making homework that asks students to look at questions on which they have made a mistake and resolve it. Similarly, I learned that the way we message mistakes to students matters a whole lot. For example, saying something like “Girls are usually bad at math, don’t worry” will not help the child’s progress. So, now I am prepared to always make sure that the conversation we are having is something along these lines: you have had different opportunities than your classmates to learn this in the past, so today, I want to make sure that you get your opportunity. Next, I learned that students truly need to practice decomposing numbers and working with numbers in different ways to be able to gain number sense and better understanding of math across topics. Numbers are malleable. For example, if you are adding 8 and 7, you can think of 7 as 2 and 5. This is helpful, because you know you need 2 more to get to 10 and then you can just add 5 to 10 to get your answer. I have mostly just assumed that all students view numbers like that because I have always thought about numbers in that way without direct instruction to do so. And I thought that if I just show them how to do this one time, they will be able to recreate the strategy. Now I think I will be doing math talks on a regular basis. Idea number two is the idea of relational equity that you talked about at the end of the session. I think this is a very easily overlooked point by instructors but I think that overlooking it is dangerous for student development. In my classroom I too often notice students deferring to another student they think is smart because they do not value their own contributions. I think that math talks have the potential to change that and give them energy to carry throughout the class. Lastly, I have learned that students most often do not understand that persistence and effort is what makes a good mathematician, not quick recall of a procedure that they need to use to solve a problem. I forget that the process of questioning, estimation and revision that comes so easily to me probably does not even occur to most (if not all) of my students. I will try to be more systematic in my classroom about getting students to really think about what their answer means and why it does or does not make sense. In order to do that, I will cut down the number of problems that we do in our class each period and focus on discussing the problems and the concepts that underlie the problems As I have stated above, implementing these ideas has tangibly improved my students’ performance. Besides the broad changes in attitude that my students have towards math, they also have had specific improvements in several areas. First, my students are now much better at mental math because of the number talks. Secondly, my students are more focused on explanations and less on whether they are getting the right answer. Lastly, my advanced students have gotten very good at looking at problems in different ways and being able to come up with various methods of solving the same problem. Below, I have attached some samples of the student work, which showcase their focus on explanations and creative solutions! The first example shows my students getting invested into better explanations: Next, we see students trying to conceptualize and actually understand the problem by drawing pictorial representations. This strategy really helps them understand how to write equations for more complex problems. In the last example, you can see students making the problems their own. In the sample, a student wrote her own problem to model the equation – which helps invest her in the task and also shows good conceptual understanding of percent. 
For more from Jo Boaler, Professor of Mathematics Education, Stanford University…
Article – The Stereotypes That Distort How Americans Teach and Learn Math Blog – youcubed.org 