Chapter 11 – Looking to the Future

When I first began this chapter I was certain that I would find that teaching methods and grouping practices at Amber Hill had changed to resemble those at Phoenix Park.....imagine my surprise to learn that the opposite had occurred....and all because of pressure from some “big wig” inspector who believed in and encouraged transmission models of teaching and the pressure put on the school by new middle-class parents.

Boaler uses her study to show “what is possible” when teachers try to deliver instruction in a way that stretches thinking and supports all students, but in this final chapter she shows what is possible when people are not willing to accept that there is a better way to teach mathematics other than a procedural approach, an approach which according to Boaler “has served few students well in the past - offering limited opportunities for understanding, identification, and affiliation with mathematics.”

Is this the same “back to basics” approach we hear of so often? An approach which Cheek and Castle question whether it was actually ever abandoned? I had an interesting conversation with a friend a while back, he works as a math itinerant with a school district and frequently hears teachers talk of adopting a “back to basics” approach in their mathematics classrooms, to correct and remediate deficiencies students bring with them from other grades.....it should stand to reason then if such an approach is successful that we will stop hearing of students who “don’t know their basic facts”, however, if everyone is using such an approach, then why then are the problems still there? Is it because math is not about knowing, but about understanding....I think so. Disconnected pieces of knowledge and rules will not serve students well in the long run, it might get the test, but it will not get them through life.....it will not allow them to transfer their knowledge to new situations, nor will it allow them to feel confident in their problem solving abilities.......why then is such an approach favoured by many? Is it because, like ability grouping, it is an easier approach for the teacher?

As I finish up this course I am wishing more and more that I had a classroom of my own, a classroom in which I could allow students to explore, inquire, create and understand...... I am certain I would need guidance along the way, but I can clearly see than such an open approach would allow students to experience greater success, much like those at Amber Hill......and it would allow them to really get back to basics.....to get back to creativity.....thank you Jo Boaler and Sir Ken Robinson for opening my eyes......