Poor math students should be failed
EQAO testing finds that our students are “failing” in math. Forget that I feel these tests are not valid tests as I and others have argued previously. Why are our students “failing” in math? Is it the curriculum? The teachers? I say the current “anti-retention” philosophy of promoting students from grade-to-grade without mastery of the previous grade’s concepts has a significant role to play in poor math results.
The Ontario Curriculum for Mathematics states, “In order to learn mathematics and apply their knowledge effectively, students must develop a solid understanding of mathematical concepts.”
It also states that, “The development of mathematical knowledge is a gradual process. A continuous, cohesive, program throughout the grades is necessary to help students develop an understanding of “big ideas” of mathematics — that is, the interrelated concepts that form a framework for learning mathematics in a coherent way. The fundamentals of important concepts, processes, skills and attitudes are introduced in the primary grades and fostered through the junior and intermediate grades. The program is continuous, as well, from the elementary to the secondary level.”
In reference to the five math strands it says, “The program in all grades is designed to ensure that students build a solid foundation in mathematics by connecting and applying mathematical concepts in a variety of ways.”
However, in our current Ontario education system students are moved to the next grade regardless of whether or not they have achieved a solid understanding of the basic math concepts of the previous grade. At one time grade retention was an accepted remediation tool for weak or slow students. However, this practice was eliminated after some research indicated that students who are held back are more likely to have anxiety, low self-esteem and behaviour problems than students of similar abilities who are not held back.
Currently for the students who need support to stay in their age-group’s grade, a plan is developed to meet the individual learning needs of the student. This Individual Education Plan, or IEP, outlines accommodations and modifications that differ from the age- appropriate grade-level expectations of their classmates.
While this specialized programming sounds wonderful and looks great in the IEP paperwork, the reality is that each primary class of approximately 20 students is led by one teacher.
If you consider a 60-minute math class that consists first of a lesson taught by the teacher for the age-appropriate grade level and time after that for guided exploration and application, there really isn’t a lot of time for individualized instruction for the many IEP students. These IEP and other low students get further and further behind as they progress through the grades, never really building a mathematical foundation. They must sit through math lessons they don’t understand and are provided different work than the rest of the class. This, too, impacts their self-esteem and causes anxiety and behaviour problems.
The problem with this anti-retention and social promotion philosophy is that we now have classrooms of students with varying levels of competencies in one class. This is difficult for teachers, creating heavy workloads for them, especially since the teachers are not getting the support they need in resources and staff to provide for the individual differences of their students. It also leaves the children without the attention they need. Either way, retaining them or promoting them creates stress for the weaker student.
If the key to being successful in math is based on developing a solid foundation why does the system not have as its goal to ensure that all students have mastery of the concepts and processes at the primary level before moving them on in grades? Because once these students get behind they rarely catch up. They are doomed by the system itself to do poorly in math right from the very beginning of their school career. Even EQAO analysis has consistently shown that “students who do not meet the provincial standard early in their schooling — that is, in either Grade 3 or Grade 6, or both — are much more likely to carry those difficulties into Grade 9.”
For students to meet success in mathematics they must master the basic concepts at each grade level before they are moved on to the next grades concepts. The current process of moving students on in grades regardless of whether or not they have mastered the math curriculum and putting them on IEP’s is not working.
Whether that means streaming students at the primary level for math (and English), for example, or pulling low students from their regular age-appropriate math class for a special class at their level.
One teacher cannot possibly meet the needs of every student.
It is not realistic of what is happening in our classrooms or possible. A more realistic approach to ensuring success in math for all our students is needed.