Posted by short memory?, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Aug 11, 2012 at 6:35 pm
sorry that reporter missed great opportunity to ask math teacher about the letter she signed, part of math department letter.
I would be interested in knowing her opinion as to teaching the beauty of math to the "slackers". Editor - Slackers was in original math department letter, I did not invent that - please do not remove word. I'm very thankful to those who made the letter public. Although it was published only half a year ago, it is already forgotten. This is a shame, since an opportunity to identify and address some real problems was missed.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Suz - I hope you read this article. It is very complimentary. Yet I cannot help to wonder if you could clarify your thoughts on the "Math Letter". I read it. I re-read it. I still cannot for the life of me figure out why it was written and signed, by apparently well-meaning people.
We never heard a clarification by it's authors. Left on it's own, uncommented upon, it paints a harsh picture of Math at Paly: Make the cut, or left behind!
It is really frightening that I have to send my kids to your math department, as I worry you will not view them kindly.
They certainly don't need to be called slackers because they cannot "handle" the excessive workload. And maybe they won't have that "aha" moment, because they have been abused by overbearing teachers and have checked out of math. Will they get more of the same treatment at Paly?
Really, can you clarify your intent with the letter? It would put a lot of parents at rest if we just understood how you will treat our kids. (if they are not math whizzes...)
Can you stand and retract your support of the letter? Or at least portions? Will anyone stand for what is a compassionate approach to teaching?
Posted by Accountability?, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 13, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Yes it is true that none of those teachers who signed the math letter ever apologized or retracted. Antink attended a meeting with Ken Dauber, Stanfors professor Boaler and Cathy Kirkman and the PNSC leaders and said she stood by the letter. She stated that Professor Boaler a noted expert on the teaching of higher level math to under served kids was wrong and that it was not possible to teach calculus to such teens. No one on the school board ever repudiated the letter and that is why the teachers didn't apologize either.
Now that we are having an election perhaps we can get to the bottom of why the board members never spoke out for our minority kids. Ken provided leadership when they didn't. Say what you want about him he cares about minority achievement and he's not afraid to take a stand for it.
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 14, 2012 at 7:44 am
Folks, you keep harping on the failure of teachers to adequately teach higher level math to struggling math students in HIGH school. The problem does not originate in high school.
If kids don't master their multiplication tables in third grade, then the snowball starts rolling from there. If they don't leave the fifth grade with a thorough understanding of fractions, then the game is probably over before it starts. You need that foundation to succeed in the sixth and seventh grade pre-algebra curriculums.
I would like to see more activism on the part of parents to ensure that ALL kids are leaving elementary school adequately prepared to succeed in the middle school math curriculum.
I love the letter, I love the intent, I love the suggested outcomes. It is dead on. To those who may have troubles understanding the meaning of the sentence with the word "slackers" in it, it means that students who are ABLE to complete the Algebra 2 requirement by their Senior year but "slack off" and don't do so now, for whatever reason, end up graduating NOT UC ready for no good reason.
Geez, folks. Denying that there are students who are perfectly happy to "slack off", "ride", "coast", whatever through to graduation, happy to do the minimum possible to graduate high school without regard to their future options, is denying reality.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Aug 14, 2012 at 11:22 am
The problem with the letter is that the meaning is very clear: if the math team judge your kid to be a "slacker", the teachers simply don't teach them. In fact, there are many reasons a kid does not get a concept. Some involve the teacher; many involve prior year math gaps. ( @Parent - they don't teach multiplication tables in 3rd grade - they just assume the kids will 'get' it, and the kids are left on their own to memorize the tables. The gaps start there, and grow through many years of ineffective teachers.)
The letter makes clear that the teachers will accept no accountability to actually teach the kids - it is much easier to label them slackers, and ignore them. Not all teachers, but it is definitely happening in the district.
This judgement of "slacker" says a lot about how our teachers view our children. This view places the responsibility for teaching on the children, and in turn results in sink-or-swim mentality. This is hugely stressful to the kids. Certainly many hard working kids are not getting the concepts taught; but it is not for a lack of trying.
Of course years of bad teaching does accumulate into disengagement. That makes the H.S. teaching harder, but they should focus on re-engagement, not abandonment.
However, the letter makes clear that they don't consider engagement a good use of their time. As if they get to choose.
Posted by short memory?, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Aug 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Parent & anonymous - I wrote above that many real problems need to be addressed. I agree that issues start earlier, math teaching has issues across the board, not only "everyday math". Having math department teachers, THE professionals spending time, writing, signing this letter is another very serious issue. Anonymous, I think this letter indicates that math teachers think they do get to choose. "Slackers" know that. Sense that. The fact that this letter was read by the school board, not addressed - so it seems, and kept out of public knowledge for many months - is another very serious issue. The graduation requirements math teacher feel need to be held differently than other districts is another whole separate issue. Goes back to - getting to choose.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Aug 16, 2012 at 7:27 am
Anonymous: By the time a kid is in high school, he or she is determining his own future. Parental influence declines dramatically, peer influence rises exponentially, and sometimes another mentor type-teacher, pastor, coach, strikes a nerve and gets a kid back on track, but more often than not, a teen s/he is choosing his path by then. By the time a kid is 14-15, s/he has pretty much been set into who s/he is and what path s/he is going to follow. So, I disagree with you. There truly are teens who have given up on math, for whatever reason (poor background, lack of interest, "too hard", whatever...). The old "you can lead a horse to water..." applies. We can not expect our high school teachers to do miracles and change a teen. The teen has to WANT it, WORK for it, to master math beyond a certain point. The letter makes an excellent point, which baffles me how it can be missed, unless I am just reading into it what my lens sees.
The point: Some kids COULD meet the minimum UC requirements if we had a mid-path for them to take in that 3 years of requirements, others could still choose NOT to if they so desire, but still have 3 years of math to graduate, practical math if you will, which is still useful and perfectly acceptable for non-UC bound kids, which are many.
No, I am not a teacher, nor a math expert, nor anything other than a parent of extremely different kids who has learned that we simply cannot expect every kid to have the same results nor a goal of college, let alone UC college.
Posted by short memory?, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Aug 16, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Perspective - you wrote: "The point: Some kids COULD meet the minimum UC requirements if we had a mid-path for them to take in that 3 years of requirements"... I think that nobody ever suggested to water down the current curriculum. Seems that many think, as you pointed out, that another - mid path - level, complying with UC requirements is needed. Seems that many understood that this letter implied that such lane would not be appropriate for the "district reputation". Seems that math teachers thought that objecting such lane is a worthy cause. This letter is quite unique - time, thought was put into that. A group of teachers speaking their minds. Anyone recalls any other cause having teachers unite this way?