Amada, the Math Atheist

One thing I have always found interesting is the debate between achievement and aptitude and the subcategory of the standard curriculum. What happens to that kid who falls through the cracks and just "doesn't get it?" There is a tendency for teachers to eventually give up on that kid. I mean, can you blame them? Depending on the size of the school, teachers have at least three to six classes with up to 25 students. Teaching to the test forces teachers into very rigid schedules with very little time for slowing down the pace for the one or two students who can't keep up. These students are ultimately perceived as having something wrong with them, but it is hardly ever questioned why the student can't grasp the concept but simply recognized that they can't. 

This debate resonated with me because it brought me back to my kindergarten through eighth grade years. I absolutely HATED math. I remember getting my schedule in the mail every year with my teacher's name glaring at me in bold letters. Each year, it never failed that I had the worst math teacher. My hatred eventually became frustration and I would resent learning new concepts because I was still trying to figure out past concepts. I would resent doing my math homework from the textbooks that probably equated to a quarter of my weight and led to a semi-permanent, hunched over stature. My problem with learning math in elementary and middle school was that I was always just given problem sets in a textbooks and that never worked for me. I needed an interactive way to learn math and none of my teachers seemed to consider that as a possibility. 

At the end of eighth grade, we had course scheduling for high school. After all of the stories I heard about high school and how it was "so much harder," getting stuffed in a locker was the least of my worries. What about math?? What if I couldn't keep up and didn't get into college? I was terrified. After I looked at the course offerings for math, I skimmed over calculus, algebra I, algebra II, trigonometry, geometry, IMP.... WAIT. IMP? What the hell is "IMP???" It was then that I discovered the "Interactive Mathematics Program."  IMP was a four-year math program that was taught at the same pace as the traditional math program, but in a more interactive and comprehensible manner. The textbook was broken into units, with a math "project" or game for each unit that brought the concepts of that unit to a level of understanding more applicable to the "real world." Essentially, we learned how each concept was used in a real life situation (i.e. learning trigonometry through a word problem about building a tree house that fit certain requirements). Although IMP had a relatively negative stigma associated and was often referred to as "too easy," or for "dumb kids," we all scored higher on the math section of the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) than our peers in traditional math classes. Participating in IMP completely made up for my past teachers who essentially gave up on having me understand. This experience led me to conclude that traditional teaching practices are not always best for students. If a student has no incentive to do well in a certain subject because they only see their failure which leads to a loss of interest, they are never going to learn. 

In my case, my inability to do math was inevitable and couldn't be "fixed." None of my teachers stopped to question why I wasn't understanding the lessons or homework. "The book explains it...." was the response I often received when I came to the teacher in despair after being unable to complete the classwork or homework. So the question I pose to policy makers and supporters of a standard curriculum challenges the importance of having a standard curriculum and traditional practices that essentially adhere to this. What's more important? Making sure everyone is ready for the tests and approaching it traditionally? Or preparing students for the tests for job security, but incorporating ways for the students to actually LEARN and stepping outside of the box of tradition to accomplish this? Is it so bad to try an approach different from what is expected?