...The math ‘we’ love isn’t always the math ‘they’ love.

Flooding my socials over the last year some of my favorite tik toks and IG stories have people declaring "the math ain't mathin' ". The viral phrase is used to denote skepticism, pessimism - when something seems off, or sketchy. In this article, I use the phrase to capture why I don't see widespread enthusiasm and support for math and why math curriculum implementation in schools often falls so flat. The reality is that more oftenthe math ‘we’ love isn’t always the math ‘they’ love.

I’ve attended dozens of ed conferences over the past decade and without fail the biggest is the exhibit hall - the free gifts, dynamic, interesting people to meet, the endless resources, the exciting games. It’s easy to get lost (literally) in it all.

At these conferences publishers shop the latest advances in curriculum to transform how children learn math and how teachers might teach it. Not a surprise, more districts have increasingly turned to a surprisingly small group of publishers in the quest to improve outcomes.

In 2023, the big 3 ofmath curriculum publishing are concentrated in more that 50% of school districts.

On the ground, reality hits differently.  In communities I visit we've learned to look under the hood as to why there isn’t widespread enthusiasm about the curriculum; what supports teachers in innovating and going off script more, and what it might take for parents and children to embrace the promise of new curriculum. Because sometimesthe math ‘we’ love isn’t always the math ‘they’ love.

3 Big Questions

After recently being asked to assess a popular math curriculum for culturally responsiveness, here are 3 'big' questions necessary to improve the chances that new math curricula doesn't fall flat in communities.

I. Challenged, but are they interested?

Most new math curricula feature tasks and activities designed to promote intellectually demanding and stimulate critical thinking - at least on paper. In a sense the question of challenge is easiest to address. It should question if students are being pushed to develop problem-solving skills and a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts beyond rote memorization. Curricula that emphasize development problem-solving skills and a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts are identified as ‘green rated’ [e.g. Eureka Mathis the third largest elementary curricula, and most used 'green' curricula].

But...

Does the curriculum engage and motivate students? Does it make them curious and eager to learn more about math?

50% of students reported never doing interesting math problems

Recentlyreported in the UK, and consistent with US STEM national data, even when kids have access to challenging math, they don’t go on to choose math-related professions and careers. In a survey of almost 90,000 students across 62 districts by YouthTruth, a nonprofit that surveys K-12 students and families, more than50% of students reported never doing interesting math problemsduring class. Consider the example of having a group of southeast DC students evaluating the business model for a Hardees, a restaurant chain that doesn't operate locally nor market to . Imagine having students explore sustainable models for local business in nearby neighborhoods - an experience that engages and utilizes local resources from parents to entrepreneurs.

II. Resourced, but 'free' to teach?

In schools with rigid implementation guidelines (sometimes set by publisher; sometimes not), teachers follow narrow script lines and activities that result in rote learning with even promising activities. Does this work? Relying only on scores of hours logged in math classrooms across the US, Canada, Ghana and Caribbean, teachers are rarely 'circled' back to, once math curriculum has been adopted.

...teachers are rarely 'circled' back to, once math curriculum has been adopted

Does our curriculum offer flexibility for teachers to adapt materials to fit their unique student populations? I hate when lessons limit the very best of math teachers. Phrases like joy, authentic learning, and ‘voice and choice’ apply as much to teachers as they do children. (hold that thought and think of parents too). A lot of talk about student agency. But a precondition is teacher agency.

III. Does it pass the community ‘EYE’ Test?

Living in my head is Carter G. Woodson's famous assertion in the 1930s that math and science teaching was "foreign". Even today, I'm amazed at how little curricula actually attend to the LOOK and needs of communities like mine. Imaging matters, and school communities need to see and explore themselves doing mathematics in powerful, positive ways.

Communities deserve to be represented in math curriculum.

When curricula make room for students, teachers and parents to draw from community knowledge and resources, new possibilities are able to be set in motion locally. Publishers focused on broad adoption and cater to large states (e.g. Texas, California, New York) minimize this. Imagine a data project that requires interviews with neighbors to determine improvement projects, while graphing them using a coordinate system .

Does this curriculum breathe life and affirmation into this community?

What do parents know about it? How does the math curriculum directly involve the community?

So what to do differently? We're challenging teams to ask these and other questions about the 'feel' of curriculum in schools. It is important to rewire the way math experiences show up for children, teachers and parents. This happens when we challenge math curriculum products to be responsive, support teachers in innovating and embraces parents and community.

Lou Edward Matthews is Founder of InspireMath, leveraging the power of culturally responsive teaching and authentic math learning experiences to improve STEM learning, access and outcomes