ACMi School Committee Debate:
A: It's a good question! Oh dear, where should I start?
Let me take a step back and establish two kinds of disciplines: a) social sciences, b) hard sciences.
Social sciences: facts depend on interpretation, culture, human factor. If we vote to enact a law, the law comes into effect. History, literature, law and even finance (to some degree) are all social sciences.
Hard sciences: facts are indisputable and independent on our interpretation and knowledge of them. No matter how much we vote for pi to be 3, it will still be a transcendental number. Math, physics, chemistry, statistics are hard sciences.
The way these two types of disciplines should be taught is dramatically different. Social sciences are learned from studies, history, etc. Math, as a hard science, is taught authoritatively, factually and intuitively. Much like observing how multiples can be swapped, then noticing that, generally, multiplication is commutative. From observations our brain connects the dots and arrives at general laws. The way TERC tries to teach is the other way around, akin to a social science: it focuses on "reasoning", explanations. It tries to instill general laws into kids' heads first, then asks kids to apply them. It is confusing, unintuitive and only frustrates kids. For wrong explanations aka "reasoning" kids are dinged and subtracted points (see this test graded by APS math admin where 100% answers are correct and points are subtracted for "wrong reasoning" or not using specific keywords in explanations). This is not the way to teach a hard science. Math is not defined by our "reasoning" of it. It is defined by mathematical laws that exist independently of our "reasoning".
In addition to my own personal take, the state of Massachusetts CURATE report points to multiple deficiencies of the TERC curriculum.
A: This is a prime example when numbers lie. The MCAS test scores of Arlington are significantly affected by all Arlington students who attend enrichment programs such as RSM, Kumon or AOPS. These students who gained advantage outside APS are way ahead of their peers. Our data indicates that at least 20% of Arlington students attend such programs, likely more. This provides boost to MCAS scores that is not attributable to APS. This is the case in other towns like Lexington, Newton etc. The exact effect of this is very easy to quantify for APS by issuing a survey, and I am planning to do that if I am elected.
A: The problem of "teaching to the bottom quarter" exists in elementary and middle schools. This echoes in the high school, because a lot of children come in unprepared, unless they were attending enrichment programs. I do believe it is a crisis, because hundreds of students are affected AND because the curriculum is getting weaker. Math department is shutting down math-6 bypass, closing doors to many kids who are qualified to advance, further dividing kids whose families can afford enrichment programs and kids from less affluent families.
A: when educators talk about “evidence” they actually mean “numbers”, but there is no evidence that the numbers they quote are beneficial for children. So really it’s just bureaucracy. My pet peeve is that current “evidence-based” education puts numbers over children, in a dehumanizing way. And I’d like us to listen to children, make that our primary “evidence”. My kids refer to APS math as kindergarten-grade, and I don’t need more evidence.
A: This area is already very well covered by existing Committee members. I am also good at learning on the spot, and I do not foresee any problems with me filling any needed related gaps. On the flip side, I bring a unique set of expertise and experiences into the Committee. I am a professional in STEM areas of engineering, data science and traditional pedagogy. In my 20+ years of research, engineering and data science professional career I worked in multiple application areas, from social networks, computational software to agriculture and biochemistry. I know first hand what skills are required in modern engineering and science, and how to teach these skills. I am also an immigrant. Arlington often speaks about valuing diversity, but true inclusion means welcoming people who bring different experiences. I hope that Arlington voters would appreciate me being different, in a good way.
A: The essence of math is exploring the "real phenomena", in an exploratory way. Usually it is taught in the following way:
The teacher takes a new problem that illustrates some new concept, explains how to solve it, solves it in front of children in detail, answers any questions.
The teacher assigns students to work on similar problems that makes use of this new concept, so that students have a practical skill that solidifies the example. At first, kids just repeat with different numbers, afterwards their brains connect the dots and they realize the concept.
Repeat. As material progresses on new topics, occasionally the older-concept problem is added to homework to reinforce prior material.
The concepts gradually become more and more complex, using prior knowledge as the basis; much like layers of bricks of a wall rest on the lower rows of bricks. It is invaluable, however, to go back to the basics repeatedly, reminding why, say, a square root of a product is a product of a square root: it's because the product of squares is square of product, and why is that - and so on. So that children are not afraid to get back to the "bottom of the stairs". This makes kids feel comfortable and on a stable foundation. Also, kids get a bigger picture: how numbers are learned from the simplest natural, extended to integers, then to rational numbers, then to real numbers, and finally to complex numbers.
So far, I cannot find a better way to teach math than the "traditional" way above.
A: Funding issues are looming, with the possible cuts of the government funding. That said, the majority of School Committee members have extensive experience dealing with these issues. We do not have to have each Committee member to "know it all". A diversified Committee means that expertise may not necessarily overlap. That said, I am planning to learn on the spot, and approach the subject prioritizing children and teachers. I will attend courses for negotiating with unions. The following is important:
a) As opposed to my opponent suggesting that the funding cut should be delegated to administration, I object to this. When facing cuts, administration usually tend to affect rank-and-file employees the hardest, leaving administration protected. We have seen this in the recent hospital layoffs where doctors were laid off while CEOs asking for pay increase. This should not happen, and I will insist on cuts (if any) being administered from top-down, the teachers getting affected as the last resort.
b) I agree with some of my opponents that we may increase class sizes (an euphemism for teacher layoffs). In Russia, my class was 33 kids. But with this regard it becomes even more important to get rid of obsession making classes "heterogeneous", making disruptive kids separate from non-disruptive.
c) When necessary, a budget override is warranted. I will work with other School Committee members who have extensive experience in that. As I said, it's unrealistic and undesirable for all members to be masters of all domains, and I can fill in this gap in my experience to help in any way I can.
A: The APS math curriculum in elementary and middle schools is very weak and inadequate for majority of students. Kids have virtually no homework throughout all elementary school. A lot of kids are demoralized by that, lacking a healthy outlet to their ambitions and resorting to "bad dopamine", such as games, disruptive behavior etc. Multiple political and financial factors caused this weak curriculum, but long story short: math is weak AND keeps getting weaker. Arlington is not unique: this is a global trend in US public education. APS administration generally doesn't allow any opportunities for more challenging math, except one, very narrow, window to such acceleration: a "bypass math 6", where all children who desire to go from math-5 to math-7 can take a test to get a little bit more advanced math. Due to pre-requisite requirements, the students who bypass math-6 can take AP Physics C at the end of the High School (otherwise they need to jump some serious hoops). Admittance rate over years for this "math bypass 6" is presented here, slide 17. As you can see, in 2024 for some mysterious reason APS decided to cut admittance to this class by 2/3. It's not because all children suddenly became less capable, but because of poor grading. Here is one such test graded by APS math admin. As you can see, the child answered all problems 100% correctly; the administrator deliberately nitpicked on their "reasoning" to decrease their grade to not admit the child into bypass-6. Note that for years prior APS math admin (illegally) refused any requests to release graded Math Bypass tests to the parents, Arlington Math Parents were the first year that successfully obtained these documents. Also, the class could admit more students, so there are no monetary considerations here. Why the rate of bypass shrunk to this horrible level is still unclear.
Now, APS math admin is planning to eliminate math bypass 6 program altogether, thus depriving children of the only opportunity to get better math and take AP Physics C in High school without jumping over hoops like "doubling up" (taking math as elective in High School) or taking summer classes. This means more demoralized children, and less opportunity for children to get equitable math toolkit (without enrichment programs such as RSM, AOPS, Kumon etc.).
It is important that math-6 bypass is not only kept running, but also expanding, and I will argue in favor of allowing children to accelerate.
A: All my children attend RSM, on their own good will. Each year we ask them the following question: "Kids, it's re-enrollment time for RSM for the next year. Would you like to continue attending RSM? Before you respond, I want to say that it's totally OK if you decide to not attend it. Our love for you will not be affected by your decision. On our end, we know RSM is hard, but it gives you a really good toolkit that later in life is almost impossible to obtain by attending, say, a 3-month course. As parents, it is our duty to explain long-term effects of your decisions, but not to force you making them. The choice is completely up to you." Each year we were fortunate to get "yes" from all kids. This is our kids' choice, and "no" will be respected. RSM in Arlington, in my opinion, is a huge blessing to the town and our community. In fact, RSM is also major contributor to Arlington Education Foundation.
I think that RSM/AOPS/Kumon programs will never be obsolete, because they are very rigorous at the top (honors) tier, and there will be always a demand for providing top-notch math enrichment for ambitious children. I think that a curriculum similar to the bottom RSM tier ("accelerated") is totally something we could aim for providing to the majority of APS students. For that to happen, we need the following:
Replace TERC curriculum with more advanced curriculum.
Allow classes with different math difficulty levels. This may or may not require non-age based math groupings (children attending based on their math level irrespective of age differences).
Allow multiple pathways: children should be free to switch to a more difficult math if desired, or to a less difficult, with relatively minor barriers to such a switch.
Surveys. Monitoring children's sentiment, and also administer exit questionnaire by APS when children are withdrawn from APS. It is beyond me why APS doesn't administer exit surveys.
Math teachers being coached and getting better math proficiency.
A: Absolutely not. I love the idea and the purpose of "Social Curriculum". There is nothing like that in Russia or Europe, but it is such a valuable skill to develop in school! Americans got this part right. The practice of assigning tasks to groups of children and teaching them how to work in a team, how to handle a team member that is struggling, how to understand your emotions and react to emotions of others (emotional intelligence) is extremely valuable. I remember working with my daughter who had a homework "Ask your parent why is it a bad idea to make fun if your friend hurt his knee". The social curriculum makes good team players, kinder people, and is important.
That said, there is not much to learn: our emotional brain (limbic system) is simple. We had it since first mammals. There is not much sophistication to it, there is no "advanced emotions", no learning curve to speak of. To maintain this skill, teachers should periodically assemble kids into teams and give an assignment to a team, controlling for the team dynamics. So, I think this program is good as is, and serves its purpose.
Regarding the criticism that you mention: I do somewhat discount qualifications and licenses, for everything teaching related. I just don't believe that some diploma makes one necessarily a good teacher. I wish more teachers knew who were Janusz Korczak or Johann Pestalozzi though. So - I am OK with teachers not having a therapeutic license, because kindness and patience are not licensable, but make a great teacher.
A: As a disclaimer, I am not arguing in favor of RSM specifically. I heard great feedback regarding AOPS and other enrichment programs, but I happen to have experience with RSM, therefore can speak to this school specifically. I have a first-hand experience with RSM which works for all of my 3 kids wonderfully, and I don't see the "recipes" happening (the way it is referred in the question). I looked at their materials, and I don't see any "memorization" and "regurgitation" to speak of. To me, RSM is a "gold standard" of a strong rigorous math. I expressed my view on the way of teaching math above. Compared to "use proper magic words" math that APS teaches, RSM is light years ahead in math education. In case you missed it, see this test graded by APS math admin where 100% answers are correct but goes against "reasoning" that APS math curriculum is peddling. By no means this approach is superior to RSM.