I had a parent recently ask me if the eighth grade math teachers will be able to teach all of algebra so her child would not have to take it again in ninth grade. The short answer is easy: of course the teachers can teach the entire course in the year. But is that the question? And is that what we want to measure - a teacher's ability to get through the curriculum?

Shouldn’t the question be, “Will my child have the opportunity to learn algebra this year and master the material?” The answer to the first part of the question is yes, the children will have the opportunity to learn.  Will all students learn and master algebra in the school year? Well, maybe. Like most skills, algebra is developmental. 

As adults we tend to understand developmental readiness when our children are young; we have an understanding when they will first crawl and then walk. We generally know when they will learn shapes. Some toddlers will begin to learn shapes at age two and by three know general shapes. This was true in 1922 and is still true in 2022, because that is how the brain develops. We seem to lose sight of developmental readiness as children grow older - yet the brain is still developing. Some 12-13 year old brains are ready for algebra while some need more time and will grasp algebraic concepts more slowly. Teachers can teach the material, but are the students learning?

Schools have generally been about teaching, focusing on teachers covering the material, testing, and moving on. We rarely give time to go over the mistakes and allow students time to master material they may still be struggling with. Many parents will hire tutors, thinking teachers are not competently teaching the students, and while tutors may help, at what cost? Tutoring has its place, but it has also become a big business preying on the pressures parents and students feel. 

How school “has always been done” is so ingrained in us that many teachers and parents resist letting go of the notion that students should get it right the first time, and if they don't then they haven't taken learning seriously enough, and moreover that learning later shouldn't be worth as much as learning sooner. In short, the message has been that learning is a race. Fast is smart.

Take a minute and reflect honestly on all the students who seem to take longer to learn, and maybe they worked just as hard, maybe harder, than many of the kids who succeeded on the first try. Maybe that was you as a student or it’s your child. Does penalizing persistence, extra effort, and determination make sense?

And what if you give more time to learn material or revisit problems a student got wrong on a test and then just give partial credit for learning it? Isn't test corrections for partial credit only proving to a student they didn't learn this on the teacher’s time table? It means nothing about actual mastery. It means nothing for the actual process or what is going on. Why just partial credit if it was learned?
  

Where does this leave students who want to learn, and want to do well, but need a different time table? How many end up learning the material, but end up with the notion they are not smart because it took them longer to master things even though they could do the same things as the “smart kids” who got it more quickly?

The truth is we struggle to let go of the past and the elements of school that get in the way of learning.  Speed is good in a race, but is learning a race?  

What is the purpose of school? The only answer should be - for students to learn!  

While it is great that some students can learn things quickly and maybe the first time around, that actually does not make those kids smarter than the others. It more accurately tells you where the development of their brain is at a certain moment. Brain development is not simply on a chronological age clock. There are wide ranges in each grade, in each age-group. 

At Schechter Bergen we want the narrative and focus to be on learning. Teachers teaching is one way that students learn. However, teaching and covering material is never the end-in-itself. We are working at changing this attitude away from teaching and grading, and towards learning and mastery. A Grade should accurately reflect what was learned - not in length of time or the chance to go back and correct - but in mastery. Only then do grades have accurate meaning.

Research shows that students who go back and learn from their mistakes often end up retaining information better than kids who got it right the first time. And a growth mind-set gives students the tenacity to go back and tackle the material until it is learned. If students can demonstrate their learning they deserve recognition of that.  

So back to eighth grade algebra or any other skill based topic: if we want our students to truly master the material they are learning in a way that sticks, we need to place the value on learning and mastery rather than racing towards the end of the curriculum by the time the bell rings. Focusing on learning can ensure that our students leave here able to use the concepts they learned at Schechter Bergen in later grades and for their entire lives.