New York City’s updated math curriculum doesn’t appear to make sense.
This summer, the city unveiled “NYC Solves,” a new public-school math curriculum aimed at improving math scores by helping kids overcome their supposed “fear of math” — which already had us doubting it.
And now comes news that the Illustrative Math approach, a core part of “NYC Solves,” looks to have reduced scores in districts that used it last year.
Last week, South Queens Superintendent Josephine Van Ess told parent leaders that the 28 high schools saw their average pass rate drop from 59% a year ago to 45% last year, while serving as “Illustrative Math” pilots.
She didn’t blame it all on the new curriculum, citing inadequate teacher training and other factors, including a 30% jump in the number of English language learners (including migrants) and a 5% rise in the count of students with disabilities.
Another part of the problem may be inadequate teacher “buy in”: Many educators complain about having to stick to scripted lessons on a rigid schedule.
But it’s notable that the same cohort of students improved their collective performance on nine other state Regents exams (thought those results may be skewed by the way the State Education Department is dumbing down all the Regents tests).
And “Illustrative Math” has some truly questionable approaches, like requiring kids to work in groups so those that “get it” can explain to their peers — all with minimal instruction from the actual teacher.
As you’d expect, gifted students manage, but those below grade level (and so lacking in the prerequisite skills) grow frustrated.
The idea is that classroom discussion helps students come to understand the concepts in a way that rote memorization and step-by-step instruction don’t.
Hmm: That might be a good idea if the teacher can’t teach, but is that the “fear of math” that schools Chancellor David Banks is really looking to confront here?
Indeed: The chancellor’s NYC Reads initiative restored the proven system of phonics instruction; NYC Solves (or at least Illustrative Math) seems to rely on new, and questionable, teaching methods — including, again, relying on kids to teach other kids.
Banks and Mayor Adams believe the math-curriculum change will bring greater student success in the long term, and the early results are muddied enough that no one can be sure.
Yet nearly all the city’s 420 high schools (all but six or seven top-tier specialized schools) must use Illustrative Math this year, up from 265 last year.
Deborah Kross, president of the parental-advisory Citywide Council on High Schools, is rightly troubled: “What bothers me is there’s only one year of results in a pilot and it doesn’t look good,” she told The Post. “Instead of pausing and analyzing what doesn’t work, we’re going to double down.”
Sure seems like she has a point.
