As a first-year English teacher many moons ago, I got a handful of novels to teach and advice from some kind mentors, but not much else in the way of instructional guidance. Fortunately, more districts and states today know that teachers need high-quality materials, aligned professional learning, and, ideally, one-on-one support. A recent New York Times deep dive into Mississippi’s educational transformation explored how employing literacy and math coaches helped teachers navigate curricula and student needs.
Mississippi deservedly gets a lot of air time, but one of my favorite coaching examples is closer to my home. Rekindle Education provides teacher-centered math coaching to partner districts in New Jersey. Devoted readers may recall the Collaborative for Student Success’ March Mathness bracket, where I rooted for Rekindle (in partnership with the New Jersey Tutoring Corps) because of its statewide reach and transparent outcomes. The organization has expanded since those early days and its leader, Rebecca Sieg, recently joined me to share her point of view on the systemic barriers – and opportunities – when it comes to state support for strong math instruction. Here’s what she had to say:
What challenges do novice elementary teachers face when it comes to modern math instruction?
Rebecca: There can be a significant disconnect between teacher preparation programming and the realities of the classroom. Many K-6 teachers are generalists who may not have taken more than one or two math classes since high school. Although they’ve passed their licensure exam, many haven’t experienced math instruction as a student or a practitioner in a long time. Prep programs can fail to engage pre-service teachers with updated, high-quality instructional materials, meaning they enter the workforce without the skills to evaluate curriculum or identify what quality looks. We also see missed opportunities for preparation programs to teach new K-6 teachers effective math practices and strategies to implement tier 1 instruction at the highest level.
The burden is particularly hefty for teachers in the early grades who don’t departmentalize. We often hand K-3 teachers their reading, writing, math, science, and social studies curricula all at once and give them only a few days to review it as they prepare for the beginning of the school year. We aren’t setting them up for success when we put that much on their shoulders without time to see how the materials fit together–or don’t–and how to make the best use of them. The support new teachers receive, whether it be coaching or mentorship, is typically not content-specific, so they are not receiving guidance on improving math instructional strategies or maximizing the math curricular materials to meet the needs of their students.
When you talk to teachers and administrators, what are the specific reasons they give for struggling with certain instructional materials and programs?
Rebecca: We often hear that elementary math curricula feels “flat.” When a program is just worksheets on a page, teachers feel forced to off-road to find more engaging materials on their own. This unvetted material often lacks standards alignment and creates additional burden on teachers as they spend time seeking supplemental materials. Teachers are also spending extra class time filling gaps left by low-quality programs, which disrupts the scope and sequence of the curriculum. This is why critical units like geometry frequently get skipped or rushed at the end of the year.
We need to make math materials more engaging for students so that they don’t develop the attitude that math is just something they need to slog through to get on with their day. The content should be active and exploratory and convey how connected math is to the real world and some of their favorite activities, like building Legos. With the right materials, math can and should spark joy.
Another challenge we hear is that math materials are not aligned to student expectations in other subjects, which can result in disjointed instruction that impacts students’ ability to learn the materials. For example, now that New Jersey is implementing new literacy expectations, we must ensure that math word problems are developmentally aligned with the language students are learning in ELA at that same grade level. Math curricula (at all levels) that make assumptions about the reading level of students may create a roadblock accessing math. A 5th grader on a 2nd- or 3rd-grade reading level could be exceptional at math. However, the wrong math text could become a barrier to them accessing the content. The same is true for our multi-language learners and the roadblocks they face when demonstrating math proficiency.
And of course, teachers need opportunities to collaborate and tailor materials to their unique context. There’s an old adage among teachers that the best professional development is the teacher down the hallway. Our goal at Rekindle is to lengthen that hallway by connecting educators with seasoned, expert New Jersey math coaches who have deep instructional experience.
For an administrator planning a new math curriculum adoption, what are the non-negotiables they must provide to ensure it actually takes root in the classroom?
Rebecca: My first non-negotiable is including teacher voices from day one. You need a range of perspectives, from novices to veterans. If teachers aren’t bought into the curriculum, they won’t implement it with fidelity. The second necessity is a realistic timeline for implementation. If teachers aren’t given time to fully digest new materials, they revert to old methods. Administrators must provide a timeline that allows teachers to regroup around the materials repeatedly to discuss what is and isn’t working, process the instructional pivots in the curriculum, and explore resources like data reports that are often missed during a hasty rollout.
New Jersey has a new governor and Education Commissioner. If you could hand these leaders a wish list to improve math instruction and teacher supports, what would be on it?
Rebecca: To start, the state should provide a vetted list of math programs that align to state standards, demonstrate outcomes, and are relevant to students’ lives. New Jersey has already demonstrated a willingness to provide more concrete guidance for literacy, so the precedent is there. Beyond that, the state should encourage behaviors that help educators implement high-quality curriculum, such as implementing math screeners to identify student needs and evaluation of professional development vendors to ensure they have a track record of success. Lastly, we should work on shortening the time it takes to receive state assessment data so we can make it more actionable for families and educators to support student learning.
New Jersey has shown a willingness to lead in literacy; now is the time to do the same for math.