Northshore’s math curriculum adopted with help from UW

Call it an experiment in combining the Art of Teaching and the Art of Knowing.

Since September, the Northshore School District has been working with the Applied Mathematics Department at the University of Washington, and with the University Child Development School in Seattle, to help make the introduction of a new mathematics curriculum in Northshore successful.

The rubber meets the road in the classroom. This is where the partnership is expressed most directly, as UW graduate students work closely with Northshore teachers in finding ways to communicate ideas central to the new math curriculum.

A new curriculum might be adopted once every 10 years. It provides an opportunity not just to introduce new ideas and concepts into the classroom, but to rethink the goals of mathematics education.

The goal of the new curriculum is to make students into “mathematics thinkers,” says Loyce Adams, UW associate professor of applied math. That means acquiring a way of thinking and solving problems that applies to many situations beyond the exercises in the book. “The graduate students provide support on the curriculum’s content. What we hope to do is increase the level of confidence of the classroom teachers with material that may be unfamiliar to them. The graduate students get something out of this, too. We typically don’t give them as much training as we should in explaining math to people who aren’t math majors. So they gain that kind of experience through this project.”

Ann Swain, a 5^th and 6^th grade teacher at Sunrise Elementary School, says ,”Any opportunity to bring in outside experts is helpful. At this age kids are still developing their abstract thinking skills, and having this kind of expertise available makes a huge difference in the kids’ understanding.

“One of the most important things we’re all learning—the students as well as I—is that there are many ways to solve a mathematical problem. I’m 49, and when I was taught math there was only one way—the teacher’s way. What we’re realizing is the goal isn’t the answer itself, but learning how to think.”

The partnership began last spring, when Northshore was considering a new math curriculum. Aaron Feik, coordinator of math and science for the district, called Adams, whom he had met a year before at a conference sponsored by the UW Math Department. “We didn’t have the resources to choose which curriculum might be best for us, so we decided to call on the UW’s expertise,” he says.

Adams assembled a team of applied math graduate students to help evaluate proposed curricula. Besides recommending the “Everyday Mathematics” curriculum that the district eventually chose, the team also strongly urged the district to seek additional support for classroom teachers during the adoption period—a minimum of one math specialist per school.

Feik asked Adams if she was willing to stay on and help the district with implementation. With funds from her own UW department, the National Science Foundation and a “Tools for Transformation” fund at the UW, Adams recruited nine graduate students for paid positions working with teachers. But she also had six students willing to work without pay. “Many of our students are very civic minded,” she says. “They want to give something back to the community.”

The partnership began with a summer workshop, held at the University Child Development School (UCDS), an independent school in Seattle. UCDS teachers actively participated in the workshop. “Being collaborative is part of our mission,” says Joan Hudson, UCDS admissions and development director. “The workshop allowed us to brainstorm, to share innovations and to explore new ways of thinking about math education.”

The workshop was a time to match Northshore teachers with graduate students. It also was a time to explore and to recognize that children have many different styles of learning. “Even in a roomful of teachers you can see the different styles of learning,” says Briel Schmitz, a UCDS teacher who participated in the workshop. “ We emphasized the use of concrete examples to explain ideas. This was a new approach for many of the graduate students, who were more comfortable with abstract methods of reasoning.” ¶

Bob Roseth, News and Information