Rooting Out Opportunity Hoarding and Perverse Incentives in the Math Classroom

tl;dr   The incentive structure of the math classroom is broken.

I live and teach in a community where opportunity hoarding is rampant. Students hoard points as if they were drops of water in the desert.

This leads to some perverse behaviors in the classroom. Students who have mastered a task or level want to take their attention to other parts of their lives. Their attitude is, I finished MY work; therefore MY obligations to math class are done. Students who have almost mastered a task or level of a topic become demanding of my attention in infantile ways. As soon as they run out of ideas, they tug on my sleeve, demanding that I re-teach them (or re-re-teach them) individually or in small groups. They value productive struggle only up to the point where they get stuck. The most challenged students feel so ashamed that they don't even know how to get started or even minimally unstuck that they try to hide in plain sight.

In a word, the incentive structure here is truly broken -- and perversely so.

I believe this is because the incentives here are all based on an assumption of individual attainment.

To allow a culture of individual attainment (what score /grade/mark did I get?) is to be complicit with the toxic culture of opportunity hoarding that pervades our whole society. I believe that the drive to hoard opportunity is one of the most powerful factors underlying the culture of systemic racism and oppression in schools.

Dylan Wiliam talks about how feedback needs to be more work for the recipient, yet every working classroom teacher I know knows that you can't force a kid to read or digest the comments. This is especially true when you have massive classes. With 37 kids per class, it's just not feasible. Kids look at the score and move on.

In my view, this is because the incentive structure of the math classroom is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it is sick and toxic. And we need to rethink these incentive structures if we truly want math class culture to heal.

If my grade means I personally have mastered or not mastered a topic, then once I get the score I want, my job is 100% done.

My problem with this is that, from the societal perspective, that is not my job as a classroom teacher.

My job as a classroom teacher is to get everybody over the finish line at the highest possible degree of mastery. For this reason,  my classroom's economy of achievement needs to become more collective, and less individual. I need to cultivate an incentive structure of positive interdependence -- "I" don't win unless others win too. Then we all win together.

There are times in my room when we're 37 individuals and there are other times when we are one classroom community. This is how things work on teams and in organizations throughout one's life in the U.S. So if we're one classroom community, then we need every individual to be as empowered as possible to achieve at the highest possible level.

For this reason, I've been expanding my whole-class skills quizzes. For a compound, complex skill such as solving a multi-step special right triangle problem (with interdependencies along the way), the quiz that I give is one that individuals take but each person's grade is an average of the scores of all the individuals in the class.

For two days leading up to the quiz, we do intensive collaborative work, including reciprocal doing-and-teaching practices such as speed dating. We also have unstructured time in which students identify as tutors or learners and then work to help each other improve the overall level of mastery in the room.

Our goal is a whole-class goal of mastery -- not an individual one. The goal is to raise the overall level of mastery in the room. Our goal as a class is to get everybody's level of understanding up. If you want to sit off to the side and work on your chemistry homework, then you're going to have to answer to your peers -- not to me. And if you don't like the grade that the whole class achieves, then too bad. Positive interdependence rules the day.

There are always one or two students who are so addicted to the toxic culture of individual attainment that they object, demanding, "If I understand it and they don't, then why should I be punished?"

And I have to explain to them over and over again. I tell them, "That's an infantile perspective. The better-prepared everyone around you is, the richer and more powerful your own learning experience is going to be -- both now and into the future. My job is to provide you with the richest possible learning experience so that you can go as far as you want to go. My job is to set the floor, not the ceiling. And this is how I, as the expert on learning, am empowering us to raise the floor of understanding."

Our school is unusual in that students get to choose their classes, their sections, and their teachers. My classes are very popular and are always among the earliest to fill up.

I choose to use this platform and my privilege to educate them. I'm blunt with the students who complain. "Listen," I tell them. "You chose this section. If you'd prefer a teacher who only gives individual scores on everything and lets you work on your chem homework when you're done, then we should talk to Counseling and get you into a course section where your desires are going to be met, because that's not going to happen in my class. There are plenty of other kids who'd be happy to switch with you."

I realize this may sound harsh, but they usually come around. And the fact is that my job is not to give them everything they think they want but to teach them and help them get aligned with the reality of things as they are.

The results bear this out. The lowest average on this first whole-class score of all my Geometry sections was an 87. The highest was 93.7.

The number of "free points" I provide in other parts of my class (through professionalism, home enjoyment packet completion, etc) makes this a wash. Nobody's grade goes down because of anybody else, but most people's grade do go up because their understanding improves. And as I tell them over and over and over again, what they need to do to raise their grades is to improve their understanding. The structure of the whole-class skills quiz empowers them to do so.

There's also less cheating and more cooperation because the incentive structures are aligned with our better, saner values.

There is still a place for individual attainment. Unit tests are individually graded as is the final exam. But individual attainment is demoted in my classroom and is put into better balance within our classroom community.

Individual attainment and opportunity hoarding are symptoms of our society's sickness. If we want to heal our learning environments and improve outcomes, we need to be open to revising the unconscious, unspoken incentive structures that keep reinforcing the systemic oppression we need to heal from.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW-UPS:

@KarenCampe asks:
Wow this is amazing. Kudos to you for implementing something that really changes the game.
Do you have parent pushback?
— Karen Campe (@KarenCampe) January 19, 2020

I'm fortunate to have a lot of support from both site and district administration. In my view, this is a moral choice. My job is to create an equitable learning environment. If a parent were to insist on an inequitable learning environment for their child, I'm not sure what there is that we could do to satisfy them, given that this is public education.

Thanks for the question.

@timteachesmath asks:
Thank you for sharing! 
You've detailed your conversations with those 'done early'; 
what do those still learning think? Is there pressure to catch up, or a super supportive community?
— Tim (@timteachesmath) January 20, 2020

They appreciate that there is time and support being made for them to master what they find challenging. They want to learn the skills, but they get to do so in a way that does not punish them for needing more time or practice. They appreciate being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. And they are better able to participate and achieve their ends -- which is the goal. We are trying to normalize high achievement for everybody -- not sort out who "got it" first and who didn't.

Thanks for the question.

Week 1 - "very much like being shot out of a cannon" #MTBoSBlaugust

Week 1 is in the can and I wanted to blog one of my best ideas from my first week back.

I should start out by saying that Week 1 was very much like being shot out of a cannon — much more so than usual. My classes this year are huge — 36, 37, or 38 students per class — but my room is the smallest in the school. So it took a lot of clever angling and arranging to ensure that we could have enough desks in the room and that everybody could more or less see from their given position in the room. I always mark on the floor with a Sharpie so that it's easier to put the desk clusters back into their optimal positions. Once upon a time, I would have considered this a form of vandalism, but now...? Hey, that's just common sense.

SEATING CHART MANAGEMENTI had a major conceptual breakthrough with seating charts this August. I always use OmniGraffle to set up my basic seating chart/management chart template that I use on my clipboard to take attendance and make notes. This year, it occurred to me: instead of using those stupid little name card tags with names to make a wall chart (which takes up an unreasonable amount of time), why not just make a board with a sheet of vinyl across to hold blank copies of the week's seating charts?

So now, I  can just print off two copies of my updated charts — one for my clipboard and one for the wall pockets. And voilá! Easy to change the seats around.

The stapled blob of paper charts makes it super-easy to make notes about collaboration or mathematical successes during group work. It also makes it easy to enter attendance on the computer each class because I just look for the 0s or 1s. My scribbled comments make it easy to enter "Professionalism" scores or comments, or to send e-mails to students or families. My working copy of charts gets stapled together and placed on my clipboard. When the week is over, I archive it in a big binder.

[visualize the dazzling photo of my wall chart that will be posted here on Monday]

There's a lot more to say about Week 1, but I'm still recuperating. More soon!

Hey, Megan, Here's my
handouts hanger in situ!

WEEK 1 - PROJECT 'MAD MEN' -- Classroom Rules PSA Skits

Leonard Bernstein once said, "To achieve great things, two things are needed — a plan and not quite enough time." I decided to put that principle to the test this first week at my new school by assigning a project on Day 1 that thew together strangers with an absurd but achievable goal: given a particular classroom rule or guideline, create a Public Service Announcement  (i.e., a 30-second "TV commercial" in the form of a skit) whose purpose was to motivate viewers to follow the rules/guidelines for the good of the group.

I created a set-up, instructions, and a rubric for the group project. And my students did not disappoint.

The idea was to get students to think about the consequences of their actions and choices, but their ideas for implementation exceeded even my wildest dreams. Most skits followed a "slice of life" strategy, but the ones that really blew us all away were the ones that parodied existing campaigns.

Two brilliant PSAs started from already-iconic Geico insurance commercials, but the one that left me with tears running down my cheeks was a take-off on Sarah McLachlan's ASPCA spots. The song, "In the arms of the angels..." began playing, and student "Sarah" appears onstage making the exact same kind of appeal she makes in those ads. They had the tone, cadence, and music exactly right, and they clearly understood the emotionally manipulative rhetorical strategy — the seemingly endless list of forms of ignorance designed to eventually provoke self-recognition in almost everyone. Their "mathematical justification" was as follows: the narrator enters and says, "In the past year alone, texting in class tragically cost 5 of Doctor X's students their lives. Remember, think twice before texting in class — there may be fatal consequences for your grade, and for you!

It was pure and inspired genius.

I also loved the spot-on impressions of my teacher persona. One student gave a pitch-perfect parody of my "Function Basics" talk that made me both cringe and laugh my ass off simultaneously.

The best thing about this assignment was that it really pushed the voice of authority downward, into the student community itself. Whatever they made of the experience, they owned it.

I am going to try and remember this for later in the semester, when we've become too routinized.

This is definitely going to be an ongoing part of my repertoire of Day 1 activities. I got through what I neded to,  then gave them the rest of the abbreviated period to collaborate. The time pressure was a thing of art.

It was perfectly imperfect — exactly the way first days ought to be.

-----------
UPDATE:

Here is the link to a generified Word document that you can customize for your own class:

PROJECT MAD MEN- classroom rules PSA generic.doc

And here are the three sample 30-second PSAs I showed my classes to give them ideas:

'You Lost Your Life!' – game show hosted by the Crash Test Dummies (Since Vince & Larry, the Crash Test Dummies, were introduced to the American public in 1985, safety belt usage has increased from 14% to 79%, saving an estimated 85,000 lives, and $3.2 billion in costs to society)
'
What could you buy with the money you save?' - throwing things over a cliff (You could purchase TVs, bicycles, and computers with the money most families spend on wasted electricity)
'Five Seconds' – at highway speeds, the average text takes your eyes off the road for 5 seconds (Five seconds is the average time your eyes are off the road while texting. When traveling at 55mph, that's enough time to cover the length of a football field)

Models of exploratory talk from my youth — the NeXT years

In planning the group work morning session, I keep asking myself what I want group work to look like — and more importantly, to feel like — for my students. So far, the best description I have found in the literature comes from Douglas Barnes, by way of Neil Mercer (of Cambridge University) and Malcolm Swan and the Thinking Together project in the UK.

So far, Barnes’ conception of exploratory talk, as fleshed out by Mercer and Swan in their research, has come closer than anything else to what I first experienced in the most creative and effective engineering cultures in my adult life.

Lately I have come to the realization that what I really want to prepare my students for is the kind of passionate, creative, and incredibly effective exploratory talk culture that first electrified me during the three years I worked for Steve Jobs at NeXT.

Steve was a master of exploratory talk skills, though he was definitely stronger on the concept development side of things than he was on the social and emotional skills. But more than anybody else I have ever known, Steve valued exploratory talk. In many ways large and small, he worshipped it. And so did we. That was a big part of how I — and many others of us — justified putting up with the craziness we endured while working for him during that period. In search of the “insanely great,” Steve was open to crossing over into the extreme. You had to really want to be there.

Steve’s primary mode of exploratory talk was what could best be described as “gladiatorial.” You had to be willing to die in the arena — and die over, and over, and over again over weeks or months or even years. If you knew what you were talking about — and were prepared to defend your ideas to the death — then you were equipped to step into the arena. However, you also had to be prepared to get bloodied. The emotional toll was tremendous, and many of the most brilliant thinkers I knew at NeXT were simply not willing or able to go into the ring. They stayed as long as they could and made amazing contributions to the experience while still preserving their souls and their sanity. As I grew up, I began to understand that the price of Steve’s mode of exploratory talk was exclusion. Like him, most of the people who were willing to engage in that exchange were white men. I was unusual in that regard because I was not. Most of the leaders of Apple are still primarily white men.

One of the most powerful things about Steve’s engagement in exploratory talk was they when you were right about something, he would eventually come back and give credit (or take credit himself while in proximity to you). As many others have said, he did not do this with a tremendous amount of grace. He could be awkward and blunt and cruel and manipulative. But he could also be deeply and sincerely celebratory of your best work, and a big part of his genius was in being able to bring together some of the brightest, most intensely creative people in the business — the ones with the best ideas and the most flexible skills and the ability to get shit done. And he was a genius at launching us all into combat.

When I joined NeXT, I knew that I was going there to connect with the people I would be starting other companies with and working with for the rest of my life. That belief proved to be true. To this day, the ex-NeXT network remains my most active and cherished alumni group. I started other software companies with exNeXTers, and I worked with some of those who later took over Apple. We shared (and continue to share) a common framework — a common way of engaging in exploratory talk that is recognizable by us all. It’s a sixth sense about a kind of passionate and engaged exploratory talk in which the participants are fully present, and totally bringing their ‘A game’ to the conversation.

In the years after leaving NeXT, most of us refined our processes of exploratory talk in ways that made the process gentler and more generous, more nurturing. Steve’s way was just too damaging. It also left too many brilliant minds and voices out of too many conversations — conversations that would have benefited from the contributions of people who were less combat-averse than the rest of us.

For my own part, I found that mindfulness, restorative practices and good therapy really helped.

But none of us were ever willing to give up the electric quality of those product development conversations. They were incandescent. They left you hungry for more. After the meetings ended, we would all crawl back to our offices, drained and exhausted. But under the surface, we were all making notes, sketching ideas, and plotting our next pitches.

Hours or days later, somebody would pull you into their office to show you something they’d hacked together on their own time, working through some unresolved part of the central idea. That was how you prepared for combat in the arena — you tested your ideas against the best minds you knew. You forged alliances.

Some parts of this process were hilarious. My friend Henry hacked together a UI (user interface) component out of the AppKit to demonstrate some point he’d been trying to convey. In the last piece of his model, there was a pulldown menu of possible actions this one modal dialog allowed you to select. The last of the possible action options in the menu was often, “Drive an 18-inch spike through my brain.” The standard buttons at the bottom right of the dialog window were ‘Cancel’ and “OK.”

For me, this is the ideal of the kind of exploratory talk conversation I want my students to taste in my classroom. I want them to experience that process of brainstorming that takes you out of your own skin — and even out of your own mind — into a kind of magical space that Neil Mercer has termed “interthinking.” It’s that experience of being part of a Bigger Mind than your own individual, cognitive awareness. Brainstorming your way into truly great ideas takes a lot more commitment to flow and to “allowing” than most cognitive psychologists and theorists are comfortable talking about.

But that’s where all the payoff is.

TMC #14 Group Work Working Group Morning Session – Annotated References & Framework

I'm having a lot of fun planning the Group Work Working Group morning session for Twitter Math Camp 2014, and it's time to start sharing.

Here is the background material I'm using for developing the group work morning sessions. Please note that this is NOT required reading!  Recreational reading only! So please don't freak out!  :)

I wanted to give people a sense of the framework and background I'd like us to start from so attendees can decide whether this morning session will be right for them. I also wanted to provide links and titles to valuable materials.

These are listed in order of relevance to the Group Work Working Group morning session — they are not in formal bibliographical form.

National Academies Press, How People Learn (downloadable PDF here)
This amazing free book provides the framework within which we'll consider the use of group work. I am especially keen for us to explore how we can develop and implement tasks that fit within their (approximately) four-stage cycle for optimizing learning with understanding while also fitting with our own individual school and district requirements. In a nutshell, the four stages are as follows:

STAGE 1 - a hands-on introductory task designed to uncover & organize prior knowledge (in which collaboration cultivates exploratory talk to uncover and organize existing knowledge)

STAGE 2 - initial provision of a new expert model (with scaffolding & metacognitive practices) to help students organize, scaffold, & develop new knowledge (in which collaboration provides a setting to externalize mental processes and to negotiate understanding)

STAGE 3 - what HPL refers to as "'deliberate practice' with metacognitive self-monitoring" (in which collaboration provides a context for advancing through the 3 stages of fluency with metacognitive practices)

STAGE 4 - transfer tasks to extend and apply this new knowledge & understanding in new and unfamiliar non-routine contexts

Malcolm Swan, "Collaborative Learning in Mathematics" (downloadable PDF here)
A short and highly readable summary of Swan's instructional design strategy for collaborative tasks, including notes on his five types of mathematical activities that constitute the bulk of the Shell Centre's formative assessment MAP tasks and lessons.

Malcolm Swan, Improving learning in mathematics: challenges and strategies (downloadable PDF here)
An in-depth introduction to Swan's approach to designing and using the kind of rich tasks offered by the Shell Centre and the MARS and MAP tasks.

Chris Bills, Liz Bills, Anne Watson, & John Mason, Thinkers (can be purchased from ATM here)
The richest source book imaginable for ideas for activities to stimulate mathematical thinking. Often credited by Malcolm Swan and Dylan Wiliam.

Anne Watson & John Mason, Questions and Prompts for Mathematical Thinking (can be purchased from ATM here)
The richest source book imaginable for variations on questioning and prompting strategies.

Dylan Wiliam, Embedded Formative Assessment
This book is a gold mine. Don't leave home without it.

Collaboration Literacy Part 2 — DRAFT Rubric: essential skills for mathematical learning groups

I have said this before: middle schoolers are extremely concrete thinkers. This is why I find it so helpful to have a clear and concrete rubric I can use to help them to understand assessment of their work as specifically as possible. I'm reasonably happy with the rubric I've revised over the years for problem-solving, as it seems to help students diagnose and understand what went wrong in their individual work and where they need to head. But I've realized I also needed a new rubric — one for what I've been calling "collaboration literacy" in this blog. My students need help naming and understanding the various component skills that make up being a healthy and valuable collaborator.

My draft of this rubric for collaboration, which is grounded in restorative practices, can be found on the MS Math Teacher's wiki. I would very much value your input and feedback on this tool and its ideas.

I don't want to spend a lot of time talking about how and why Complex Instruction does not work for me. Suffice it to say that the rigid assignment of individual roles is a deal breaker. If CI works for you, please accept that I am happy that you have something that works well for you in your teaching practice.

This rubric incorporates a lot of great ideas from a lot of sources I admire deeply, including the restorative practices people everywhere, Dr. Fred Joseph Orr, Max Ray and The Math Forum, Malcolm Swan, Judy Kysh/CPM, Brian R. Lawler, Dan Pink's book Drive, Sam J. Shah, Kate Nowak, Jason Buell, Megan Hayes-Golding, Ashli Black, Grace A. Chen, Breedeen Murray, Avery Pickford, "Sophie Germain," and yes, also the Complex Instruction folks. I hope it is worthy of all that they have taught me.