Comments on: MMSD Math Task Force Report, Thoughts on Teacher Preparation

By: Nate

Nate — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:47:04 +0000

I could not agree more. I know several math teachers with national honors that I would consider “poor teachers”. Their knowledge was superb and were wonderful with a particular group of high end students, but were unable to help the kids who just didn’t “get it”.

By: T Mulligan, NBCT

T Mulligan, NBCT — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:30:37 +0000

William:

I guess the point is that teachers are different than mathmaticians. Math teachers must be good at math. I would assume that states need gateway tests that can rule out candidates that cannot spot the types of errors you identify in the post on your blog. However, to be a math teacher, one must also be able to do the things that good teachers do. Without the second, the first is useless.

By: William Wallace

William Wallace — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:03:33 +0000

Finding teachers who are good at math is more important than finding teachers who have learned about teaching math. Much of what is being taught to mathematics teachers is based on shoddy and preliminary research, much of which appear to be fads.

Of course, finding a teacher who is both good at math and has also studied teaching is even better, but if I had to choose between the two, I’d choose “good at math”.

By: T Mulligan, NBCT

T Mulligan, NBCT — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:14:10 +0000

Sorry if I misused the “you”. I meant the task force.

In addition, I’d add that the tenure system, in as much as it grants tenure too early, is a part of the problem. Districts need as much or more than five years to properly evaluate a candidate, and new teachers–who might become excellent–may not demonstrate their potential early. Its just too hard to see the potential in a candidate by the scores they received in college math courses.

Real reform in teacher quality might begin with solid partnerships between universities and school districts which were designated as “teaching districts”–like teaching hospitals. Here, apprentice teachers would spend most of their preperation day in classrooms with students, not discussing isolated theory or creating phantom lesson plans outside of the reality of the classroom.

By: Thomas J. Mertz

Thomas J. Mertz — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:56:15 +0000

Thanks for the comment.

I’m not sure who you mean by “you,” me or the Task Force.

I have looked at the NBPTS and was impressed.

I’ll give the Task Force credit for including much about the issue you raise in their discussion. I’ll also note that most of this is lost in the recommendations.

By: T Mulligan, NBCT

T Mulligan, NBCT — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:37:52 +0000

Perhaps the problem here is that you are looking too much at “math skills” of teachers, and not enough at teaching skills. To ensure the skills, impose a strong math test that teachers must pass before getting credentials from the state.

The larger problem is how to determine if these teachers can communicate what they know. Can they get around the room and address students’ questions? Can they explain a concept in ways which reach learners with different learning styles? Can they read achievement data and react appropriately to it? A good teacher can impart 18 months of math content in a year; a bad teacher, 6 months. This has less than do than one might think with the teacher’s command of content.

Don’t focus too much on how much math a teacher knows, focus on if they can teach. Consider reviewing NBPTS standards for teaching.