Ep 54. Balanced literacy didn’t work—will balanced math? with Ben Solomon
This transcript was created with speech-to-text software. It was reviewed before posting but may contain errors. Credit to Canadian Podcasting Productions.
Balanced literacy didn’t work—will balanced math? with Ben Solomon
In this episode, Anna Stokke speaks with Dr. Ben Solomon, professor and researcher at the University at Albany with expertise in math assessment and intervention. Ben returns to the podcast to discuss “balanced math” and the recently released New York math briefs, which are part of the state’s numeracy initiative, and are set to shape professional development across New York.
He explains why he and his colleagues launched a petition calling for the retraction of the briefs, pointing to omissions, misleading claims, and misuse of the term “evidence based.” They also unpack common math myths, such as the claim that timed tests cause math anxiety, and highlight the importance of explicit instruction while drawing parallels to balanced literacy and the reading wars.
This timely conversation is essential for educators, policymakers, and anyone committed to improving math education.
This episode is also available in video at www.youtube.com/@chalktalk-stokke
Petition to Retract the New York Math Briefs: https://shorturl.at/bN7PF
Masterclass: Evidence-informed Mathematics Teaching, La Trobe University https://shortcourses.latrobe.edu.au/masterclass-evidence-informed-mathematics-teaching
TIMESTAMPS
[00:00:23] Introduction
[00:04:22] Understanding the New York Math Briefs
[00:09:46] The science of learning and its frameworks
[00:16:18] Myth 1: Time Testing causes Math Anxiety
[00:22:00] Myth 2: Explicit Instruction is Only for Students with Disabilities
[00:27:10] What is Explicit Instruction?
[00:29:45] The Importance of Explicit Instruction
[00:34:07] Similarities between Balanced Literacy and Balanced Math
[00:38:30] The Fundamental Misunderstandings of Explicit Instruction
[00:41:51] Myth 3: Structured Practice of Math Facts and Standard Algorithms Isn’t Useful
[00:43:56] Misconceptions about Conceptual Understanding
[00:47:13] Myth 4: Discovery Learning Should be Prioritized in the Early Stages of Acquisition
[00:51:50] The New York Math Scores
[00:57:03] The Benefits of Math Fluency Programs
[00:58:52] Replacement Documents for the New York Math Briefs
[1:05:38] Final Thoughts
[00:00:00] Anna Stokke Welcome to Chalk & Talk, a podcast about education and math. I'm Anna Stockey, a math professor and your host. Welcome back.
This episode is available in both audio and video. You'll find a link to my YouTube channel in the show notes. My guest in this episode is Dr. Ben Solomon, a professor and researcher at the University at Albany.
He has deep expertise in math assessment and intervention and was previously on the podcast to talk about red flags in education research. In this episode, we talk about what we're calling balanced math. It's kind of like balanced literacy.
And the recently released New York math briefs.
These are documents that are part of the state's numeracy initiative and will shape professional development across the state. I want to start with an urgent request. Ben and his colleagues started a petition calling for the retraction of the New York math briefs, pointing to major omissions, misleading claims, and a misuse of the term science and evidence based.
If you care about improving math education, please take a moment to sign the petition and share it with others. The link is in the show notes, and your support can make a real difference.
In today's episode, Ben explains why he started the petition. We discuss some common math myths found in the briefs, including the claim that time tests cause math anxiety and why these ideas are not supported by research. We also talk more generally about the critical role of explicit instruction in math and draw connections to the reading wars and the pitfalls of so-called balanced approaches.
Whether you're an educator, a policymaker, or just someone who cares about improving math education, this episode is for you.
Before we get started, I have an exciting announcement. I will be co-delivering a master class on evidence-informed math teaching through La Trobe University's School of Education this fall. It can be taken by any teacher or pre-service teacher anywhere in the world.
It can be taken by any teacher or pre-service teacher anywhere in the world. It will be on Monday, October 20th in Australia. That's October 19th in North America. I'll include a link in the show notes for registration, and I hope to see you there.
Also, if you've been enjoying Chalk & Talk, consider checking out the podcast Teachers Talk Radio. They've got a network of around 30 teacher hosts, and they publish episodes daily on all the usual platforms.
They cover anything that's teacher related, like behaviour, assessment, instructional techniques, even AI. So, give them a follow wherever you get your podcasts or visit them at ttradio.org. That's Teachers Talk Radio. Now on with the show.
I am here today with Dr. Ben Solomon, and he is an associate professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology at the University of Albany. He's the former director of New York's Technical Assistance Partnership for Academics at Albany, which works closely with the New York State Education Department to promote best practice in academic assessment, instruction, and intervention for students with disabilities. He's well-versed in research methodology with a focus on math assessment and intervention.
And he was previously on the podcast, and we have a great episode on red flags in education research, which you can check out after this podcast. And he recently started a petition to retract the New York math briefs. This is a really important topic.
This is an important petition, and we're going to put a link in the show notes. So, let's start with a bit of background so we can find out what's going on in New York. So, what are the purpose of the New York math briefs and what impact do they have on how math is taught in the state of New York?
[00:04:22] Dr. Ben Solomon: Thanks so much, Anna. I'm really excited to talk about this, and I think it's really important and serves as a model for sort of other states and what they're doing. So, the purpose of the New York math briefs is to basically provide guidance to teachers, special education teachers, anyone who may be responsible for teaching students mathematics, and guide them in terms of what the state of the research, the state of the science says in terms of how we should be assessing and teaching. It's part of actually a broader initiative, and it's called the New York State Numeracy Initiative, which our governor spurred on a little while ago.
And the initiative itself makes complete sense. New York math scores have stagnated for many, many years. We're below the national average.
We spend an enormous amount on per pupil to educate students. And obviously, New York is concerned about its future competitiveness in terms of whether we’re preparing our students for the kind of STEM fields that obviously will be critically important in the future. So, the New York State Numeracy Initiative makes complete sense.
I was very happy to see that. And as part of that initiative, they commissioned these eight briefs written by Debra Ball and colleagues out of the University of Michigan.
And what they had this group do is basically summarize what they felt was the state of the science of math assessment instruction so they could guide New York educators in terms of how they should change their assessment and teaching practices to promote the best outcomes.
[00:05:53] Anna Stokke: OK, so and you brought up the word science and we're going to zoom in on that a little bit later because I think that's an important word that we need to discuss and what that actually means in these briefs. But let's back up a bit. So how did you first become aware of the briefs and what was your initial reaction when you saw them?
[00:06:16] Dr. Ben Solomon Yeah. So, I really heard about it through two pathways. First was a webinar you and I did for EdWeb in May.
And we had this great presentation on myths of math instruction and what you should be on the lookout for. And obviously, you recall that after we finished that webinar, a couple of people hung on and they said they wanted to talk to us. And they were New York teachers and administrators. And they said, hey, we just went to this webinar sponsored by New York State Education Department, and they said some things that I don't think you two would agree with.
It concerned us. We were confused and we'd like to talk to you about it.
And obviously, they discussed the briefs and the presentation. And that cued me in that there was a problem. Secondly, even before we had talked to them, however, I had other teachers and administrators emailing me saying, hey, have you seen these briefs? They say some funny things.
I'm confused because it doesn't seem to align with how I understand the state of math research is going, what we might call the science of math. What's your perspective on this? What's going on? Am I missing something? So, I heard chatter within the state even before you and I did our presentation. But then after that presentation, those teachers hung on. And that right after that, I should have done it earlier.
Right after that is when I went through each of the briefs individually. I unfortunately had to concur with those teachers and those administrators that the briefs did not represent the science of math and that they seem to be largely that group's opinion. But they drew in very, very little science as I understand that word and as I understand that body of research as it reflects the science of math, which I've been tracking for nearly 20 years now.
It's public. It's not hard to find. So, yeah, I had a bit of a surprise reaction to that.
And that prompted me to respond. I felt an ethical obligation to respond to those briefs on behalf of those teachers and administrators that came to me confused and nervous about what the future of math instruction would be in New York. Right.
[00:08:22] Anna Stokke: OK, so and just to explain that we had given a presentation, a webinar that was actually quite well attended, and it was called the Science of Math Instruction. And it was an honour to present with you. And you are a research methodologist, like you are an experimental researcher.
You know what good research looks like. And so, it's really interesting to watch all these people kind of hijack the word science and put it in front of math, the science of math, the science of math instruction, because it gives the aura of being scientific and being rigorous research. But we have to be careful about that.
We actually have to look at the research and see if it really is scientific. So, your letter, it's a great letter that you wrote, and it describes the briefs as being critically flawed. And you mentioned grave omissions and inaccuracies in summarizing what's purported to be evidence-based math instruction.
And so, we're going to unpack some of that. And so, you mentioned already that the briefs use the word science. But they actually only cite two experimental studies and two meta-analyses.
So, can you talk about that? Why is that a problem? And what other kind of research did they cite?
[00:09:46] Dr. Ben Solomon: Yeah, there's a lot to unpack there. The science of learning, whether it be in reading or math or social studies or history, it doesn't matter. There are well-defined research frameworks for how we generate valid conclusions within those fields, just like any other science, right? If you think about physics, if you think about medicine, if you think about astronomy, if you think about public health, the list could go on and on.
Counselling, we've all adopted the scientific method because the scientific method has been found to result in really accelerated findings that, not to be overly dramatic, benefit humanity. So, it's acknowledged that scientists adopt that framework to generate valid conclusions. And our public institutions have accepted this.
Our governments have accepted this. This is why in the United States, we have the National Center for Intensive Intervention. We have the What Works Clearinghouse, which is sponsored federally because they've acknowledged that the only way we're going to improve education is through rigorous experimentation that uses sort of the scientific method, right? And so, to go back to your question, when I see these eight briefs and they only cite two studies, two meta-analyses, what that tells us is that the briefs are mostly this group’s opinion, which they're entitled to, but it doesn't reflect the state of the science because clearly, they didn't review the science.
What they did cite, because it wasn't just those four citations, they had other citations, although not many, what they did cite was mostly books, personal opinion essays, workbook, teacher workbooks, those kinds of things, which may be very useful, by the way. I don't want to knock them. They may be useful for teachers as resources.
They may be useful to drive hypotheses, but they're not peer-reviewed articles. And there are many peer-reviewed articles in math that they could have drawn from. Okay, yes, there's less than there is in reading, but there's still tons to go by.
For example, you and I, I think recently read a comprehensive research synthesis on fluency and learning algorithms by McNeil and co-authors, and it was this year, I think 2025. So, I went and counted how many empirical articles they cite, specifically in math or learning science that applies to math. There were over 500 references.
I'm not saying the briefs needed more than 500 references, but just the contrast is stunning, right? Sarah Powell, who wrote this fantastic article on concerns with the new NCTM standards, she identified, I think, nine meta-analyses that had been done in terms of how to best teach math to students, right? And those nine meta-analyses represented another set of hundreds of articles. So, the research is there for these people to cite. If you're putting out these briefs to the public, you need to convince them that what you’re suggesting is valid, and that it has been well-researched, and that you've scraped the sand identifying what works for a wide distribution of students.
And understandably, the briefs are public documents, so I understand they're not going to put 500 references down. They don't want to intimidate people. I'm not saying that's what I was looking for, but there needed to be an in-between there where they show that they did do a respectable search, scientific search, just like you or I would do within our own fields to generate these conclusions.
And it was clear they didn't. I want to be careful. You don't want to, and we talked about this last time, you don't want to move into negative comments, so to speak.
You try to keep it empirical. But the first word that came to me after I read these was pseudoscience, and I was like, these briefs have the hallmarks of pseudoscience. And so, my favourite definition of pseudoscience from Scott Lillenfeld, from an article he wrote many years ago, was that pseudoscience possesses a superficial appearance of science, but lacks its substance, right? Because they use the terms research and science fairly often across the briefs.
They identify these briefs as the state of the science in math instruction. So, they are trying to use that veneer. But if you look underneath it, it's not the science by any stretch.
And yes, we can have debates about whether Article X was valid or not, or Article Y was valid or not, or what the weaknesses of this study were if they based a lot of their argument on it. But we're miles from that. We're in a situation where they were basically summarizing, again, what seemed to be their opinion, and books they liked, and maybe some articles, but they were mostly commentaries.
Or that's a very far stretch from summarizing the state of the science. And when you do that, technically, that is the definition of pseudoscience, which has proven to be a very problematic and quite hurtful in other disciplines, like psychology, and science, and medicine. That's something they're trying to actively work against, because it results in valid outcomes and possibly people getting hurt in other fields.
And so unfortunately, that was the first word that came to mind when I read these.
[00:15:24] Anna Stokke: Okay, so and actually, what you're describing, I would say it's actually not that uncommon in education documents, unfortunately, but we really do have to start holding people to a higher standard. And you're talking about the New York Education Department.
They do have a responsibility to put out documents that are actually valid. Let's get into it. So, your letter details several factual inaccuracies in the briefs.
And let's go through some of those. And I guess we won't cover all of them, because maybe there are a lot of them, but we can cover some of the main ones. So, we'll call them myths.
And the first one, which we've gone through a lot on this podcast, and it just keeps cropping up everywhere, time testing causes math anxiety. So, do the briefs perpetuate this myth? And what evidence are they citing for that claim?
[00:16:21] Dr. Ben Solomon: Yes. In brief two, they state repeated speed drills and time tests later also frequently cause student stress and to see themselves as not good at math.
So, they leverage that claim pretty early on.
[00:16:35] Anna Stokke: Okay. And do they have any articles that back up the claim?
[00:16:39] Dr. Ben Solomon: I have to go back and look.
But obviously, this is an area I know pretty well. I've spent a large part of my career studying speeded practice and time tests as they relate to both math and reading. And so, I know that if you look at the top peer reviewed articles, if you look at the most valid research, it's flat out the opposite, right? And let's break that down into speeded practice and time tests.
So, when we talk about time tests, there is this myth, and you're right, you've covered it so many times on this podcast, that time test causes math anxiety. I think you had Robin Codding on once, and she broke this down in great detail as to why this was a myth and what the state of the science says. Robin's a fantastic colleague of mine.
And what they have found is that the reason students maybe have math anxiety isn't because they’re taking the test. It's because they're bad at math and they know it, right? So, tests are not a cause of math anxiety. They are the symptom of something else going on, right? Which are students have gotten poor instruction in math, know they're not good in this area, so they find any math task, whether it be a test or an instruction, aversive now.
And that's what's going on there. I will say in my personal experience, I do a lot of research now on evidence-based math instruction. I go into schools, I deliver class-wide math instruction, and a huge chunk of that, of my math routines I do with kids, is speeded practice.
I've done it with hundreds of kids at this time. I have to, my IRB makes me, my ethics review board, makes me report any time I ever see distress in a student as I'm doing these instructional routines. Across hundreds of students, I've yet to report one case, okay? That's my personal experience.
That's not scientific fact, so let's take that with low weight. But when you do brief speeded practice with students, I have yet to ever see any symptoms of math anxiety. The tests are critical because that's the best predictor of how students will do later in math, is not just whether they are accurate on a math test, right? That doesn't tell you how good that student will be later on.
The best predictor of how students will do later on is if you give them a brief timed test on a procedural skill, and how effortlessly they can accomplish that task. And you need the timing to do that, because if they had an hour to do it, that's not representative of what they'll require later, right? Anna, you teach calculus, right? And if you saw students counting up with their fingers in class, that's not going to get them very far because they're going to be devoting attention to that, and they're going to forget the very complicated algorithms you're trying to teach them. They can't devote a second to that.
They need to know, and we've talked about this, their multiplication tables instantly. That's what those speeded practice tests get at, right? Because if they have to count up on their fingers, or if they have to use another mental strategy, they’re going to be too slow, and they're not going to do well. And that's important for me as a teacher to know.
If it's just an untimed test, or my opinion, I'm not going to get that information. And I want to distinguish those kinds of tests also from the high-stakes achievement tests students take. Those admittedly can be grueling.
They can go multiple hours. In my daughter's school, they devote multiple days to it. Granted, that information is very important.
We need to know how schools are doing on standardized tests. We need to know how states are doing on standardized tests, because that's how we can hold them accountable and know which schools are doing which things right, or which schools need improvement. So that information is important, but that's a different kind of test than we're talking about now.
We're talking about routine-speeded tests, and I don't know how you can teach effectively without them. So, when they say those tests generate anxiety, I have no idea where they got that. It is not supported in the rigorous research.
Again, you can quickly do a search, and Robin's wonderful research is the first thing that comes up. So, the preponderance of evidence suggests that math anxiety, while students do certainly show anxiety towards math, it's because of past poor instruction has nothing to do with the test.
[00:20:46] Anna Stokke: Right. And they're not doing students or teachers any favors by perpetuating this myth. As you said, it's the fluency piece. It's being able to do something accurately and effortlessly, instantaneously when it comes to something like math facts that actually helps you do better in math later on.
And not having that is what might make you nervous about math.
[00:21:13] Dr. Ben Solomon: Absolutely. And across some of my experiments, I've shared the test performance with the students.
So, they'll take a speeded math practice test on Tuesday, and then we'll score it and show them the test grade on Wednesday. And you know what? They love it. Because if you're matching it with good instruction, they're growing, right? And they love watching themselves grow.
If you want to tackle math anxiety, that's how you do it. By demonstrating to this student that they can learn math. So again, it has nothing to do with the test.
And you know what? As far as the briefs go, if you have a problem with that, okay. But at least acknowledge the counterfactual. At least acknowledge the other body of evidence, right?
Because it's there. When you ignore it, it becomes a glaring hole to those people that are knowledgeable in this field.
[00:22:00] Anna Stokke: Yeah, absolutely. So, let's talk about another myth.
And this is another one that we see all the time. And frankly, it's quite shocking that this is still going on. I could talk about this forever.
So, myth number two, instruction is only for students with disability. So, what exactly do the briefs say about explicit instruction?
[00:22:24] Dr. Ben Solomon: Yeah. Again, I try to stay empirical and keep a scientific mind. People have different opinions. We need to argue scientifically. But my heart almost stopped when I read this.
So, they mentioned explicit instruction at different points. I'm not going to go through every instance. They had one line that, frankly, shook me.
And they say, this is different from what people sometimes call direct instruction, which they put in quotes, because it builds on the idea that students are sense makers, not empty vessels to be filled. Later, they say, step-by-step instruction can support students to learn mathematical procedures. Much of this research is focused specifically on students with disabilities.
So, there's a lot to unpack with those two lines. So, with the first line, to say explicit direct instruction is for empty vessels. A, that's awkward wording. It's not precise. What is an empty vessel? Students aren't pots. I never assumed they were empty pots.
It's condescending, right? It's condescending towards a massive body of research. We have research demonstrating that direct explicit instruction, those are direct little d, little I, direct instruction and explicit instruction are sort of synonyms. I'd say for well over a half century now, we have a cohesive body of research showing that direct explicit instruction works very, very well.
And it doesn't just work very, very well for students with disabilities. I don't know where they got that. It works well for all students who are learning something new, right? So, if you're a student who is not a student with a disability, and you're in sixth grade and you're learning pre-algebra, explicit instruction will work very well for you.
Whether you're a student who historically has struggled in math, or a student who frankly is gifted in math. You need your instruction levelled appropriately. You don't want to teach something a student already knows.
That's not good, okay? But when you're teaching something new to a student, explicit instruction works very well. And we have hundreds, if not thousands of articles that are of very, very high quality in reading and math, demonstrating. And in cognitive psychology has also supplemented very well across the age span, including with college students in very rigorous experimental situations, showing that explicit instruction is highly efficient. And when done following its tenets can teach skills remarkably quickly, even the students that have historically struggled. So why they say it's only for quote-unquote empty vessels, I couldn't even begin to tell you. I don't have enough time to rattle off all the great researchers that have tested this out.
And so, I was very shaken by that line, because it was just so antithetical to the goal of educating students well. And then later that comment about it's only for students with disabilities. What? They've done research across all kinds of age spans.
My colleagues, Brian Poncy and Gary Duhan, my colleague, Amanda Vanderheyden they’ve done research in typical classrooms showing explicit instruction works very well. Where was that? Yes, there is a lot of research showing that explicit instruction works very well for students with disabilities. They are correct.
But there is lots of research across the age span. We have no reason to believe that students with disabilities, and I hope this wasn't what they were implying, learn differently than typical students. Because they don't.
It may take longer for them to learn certain things. It may take longer for them. It may take more trials, as we say in the scientific way. It may take more learning trials for them to master a certain topic. But students with disabilities learn just the same way you and I learn. So, I don't know why that's relevant.
So, when they said that explicit instruction is only for empty vessels and really maybe is relegated for students with disabilities, I really took a double take. And later, to their credit, they do say explicit. I don't want to mischaracterize their argument.
Later, they do say, well, maybe explicit instruction is good in certain instances in certain times when you're teaching, right? But they don't expand on it at all. They don't say when it is. And they make it very clear.
What they're trying to do with their argument is say, you should probably use it less than you currently are, not more, in favour of these other routines. So even when they do mention it, they really belittle it, even when they're talking about its use within the general education classroom. And I don't know why.
We have such great programs. If you look at capital D, capital I, direct instruction, if you look at the tenets of precision teaching, if you look at the tenets of basically any quality curriculum that has been proven successful for most students, they’re using explicit instruction. It's a completely unfounded claim.
[00:27:03] Anna Stokke: Yeah, it is unfounded. OK, so just to make sure we're clear on what we mean by explicit instruction, because I think we should just discuss that briefly. So how would you define it? How do you define explicit instruction?
[00:27:16] Dr. Ben Solomon: Sure. The quote I often use when people ask me that question is from an article by Hughes and his colleagues in 2017. And I apologize. I know that I'm going to repeat this whole thing, but it's a good summary quote.
Explicit instruction is a group of research-supported instructional behaviours used to design and deliver instruction that provides needed supports for successful learning through clarity of language and purpose and reduction of cognitive load. It promotes active student engagement by requiring frequent and varied responses, followed by appropriate affirmative and corrective feedback and assist long-term retention through use of purposeful practice strategies. So, when explicit instruction is characterized in that way, I don't understand why there still remains this huge fear of it.
I don't know what else to call it. I think sometimes there's a myth that explicit instruction is very boring or very dry. And I know you've discussed this on your podcast with many people before.
It's not. It's highly engaging. Students are being given opportunities to respond by the minute. Teachers are trying to promote easy learning and clarity. I don't understand why there still remains this sector of the field that is still trying to tamp it down.
[00:28:35] Anna Stokke: Yeah, we're going to change it, Ben.
That's what we're doing. Nothing's going to stop us. And I do want to actually encourage people to check out that Hughes paper, and we'll put up a resource page for this episode, and we'll make sure it's on there.
I think they have five pillars, even, of explicit instruction. I can't remember them off the top of my head, but things like scaffolding and presenting things in small steps and checking for understanding, those things are on there. It's kind of like Rosenshine's principles.
So, yeah, it's a really good paper, actually. So, we'll put that up. So, and I kind of want to bring in reading because it's really interesting.
And I've watched what's going on in the U.S., and I think we're a little behind in Canada, as always. Sometimes that's good, and sometimes it's bad. In this case, it's bad.
But I feel like a lot of states or school systems or districts are actually really embracing explicit instruction and reading, but they can't seem to see that the same is true for math, that it's essential in math as well, right? Like, as you mentioned, explicit instruction is good for anyone that's learning a new skill. It doesn't matter if it's reading, math, learning to ride a bike, whatever. So, what's going on with that? Why can't people see that this is also essential in math if they can see it's essential in reading?
[00:29:59] Dr. Ben Solomon: Yeah, isn't that funny? I've thought about this.
I think the reason is because math instruction, at least in the States, has been pretty poor on average for a long time. So, you now have generations of people that are pretty scared of math. And so, they see it really as this entirely foreign construct, this entirely foreign body of knowledge.
And they can't make connections to other disciplines, right? Because it's just so alien to them. And because it's just so alien to them and they're so fearful of it, they can't stop and go, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. So, if we're learning all these principles about how students acquire reading, I bet that works in these other areas.
And I bet I can access these other areas too, right? If I use the same principles. I think it's just superficially, it just appears too foreign to them to make those connections. I feel very blessed because I've been taught that the principles of good learning apply to all fields, right? There is a broader science of learning. And obviously it needs to be tailored to the individual field. It's not like I can just put on a new hat and teach physics, right? But the way humans learn, it is the same across fields in terms of the quickest way they gain knowledge. Again, it's through very purposeful specific teaching.
It's through lots of recall and practice. It's through learning things sort of procedurally. It's connecting it all to sort of a cohesive sort of skill chain.
It doesn't matter the field, whether it be athletics, whether it be math, whether it be reading, whether it be history, whether it be... I thoroughly enjoyed teaching my children to learn to ride their bikes because I was like, here’s the instructional hierarchy in action. Watch, I can literally watch it happen by the minute as I teach them the different functions of the bike, from the pedals to the handlebars. And then we're going to practice those individual steps.
I'm going to model. You're going to follow. Now I want you to recall it.
Now I want you to bring it together. Now you got it, but you're still not very good at riding a bike. My oldest will kill me because she probably doesn't want me to tell you that she actually ran straight into a garage door the first time we practiced.
But then all it came down to was practice. And I had to film the feedback, right?
So now I want you to practice, practice, practice, practice. I'm going to give you some summary feedback later.
But you understand the elements. So, it applies to learning to ride a bike. It applies to all fields.
So, I'm very lucky in that I understand that there's a broader science of learning where I can break down how to teach anything to people, right? And again, it's cross-disciplinary. But I guess I was fortunate in that I got that instruction, right? If you didn't get that instruction, if you haven't been taught that there's broader principles in terms of how humans acquire knowledge, then maybe you think it's domain specific. And what applies to reading maybe doesn't apply in math because it's exotic in a different field.
But I'm here to tell you, it's the same. What you need to learn is very different, right? And what you may need to spend more time on is very different. And you need obviously great knowledge in your own area that you're teaching. But the principles of how you share that knowledge and communicate that knowledge is the same across fields. So yes, whatever you've learned about reading, and it's been wonderful to see. I've so enjoyed the flourishing of the science of reading. I know it's been vindicating to a lot of people who have been fighting that battle for a very long time. Some thought it was hopeless at some points. So, the fact that we're sort of having a reading renaissance, I hope it sticks.
It's wonderful, but there's no reason that we should wait another half century for math to have the same renaissance, right? Because that's how long it took in reading. We figured out the best way to teach students to read in the 70s, right? And it took till now to get it out into the public at such a way that finally there was a tipping point. So, with math, it's going to come because we've seen the timeline happen already.
But there's no reason we need to wait that half century for it to happen. It can happen right now. And we can save generations of people struggle with mathematics and make them far more competitive for jobs and good careers if we can generalize that information over right now.
[00:33:58] Anna Stokke: Oh, absolutely. We want it to happen right now. So, does this share similarities with balanced literacy, do you think?
[00:34:07] Dr. Ben Solomon: A hundred percent.
I think we should start using the term balanced math more often because I think it will help people understand what we're talking about when it comes to math. Balanced literacy was a term generated in the 90s and it was seen as sort of the can’t we all get along solution between sort of the constructivist and whole language people and the explicit instruction science of reading phonics people. And obviously I'm oversimplifying the sides with those terms, but I think most people will get the idea, right? So, these two sides in what was called the reading wars, lots of greater colourful action descriptors there had been fighting for a long time.
And so, in the 90s, the term balanced literacy came as a way to integrate the two sides. And obviously that seemed like a good idea at the time. I understand why that would, people would conceive that as a way to develop cohesion within the field and move people along.
But that's not what happened. What really happened was we got this whole generation of curriculums that identified themselves as balanced literacy, where they sprinkled phonics instruction in a disconnected way into the curriculums that wasn't otherwise tied to what the students were learning. And otherwise, we're sort of whole language curriculums that encourage bad behaviours like three queuing.
And those curriculums actually were no more effective than the generation before them. And the balanced literacy movement evolved to the point where there was a reading crisis and that sparked, and that was the spark that lit the science of reading a fire on. We don't want to go there with math because if we think about what balanced math might be, and I haven't heard that term, but it makes sense to me.
If we think about what balanced math might be, it might be something akin to balanced reading where we use sort of constructivist discovery learning principles predominantly, right? Have students have explore quote unquote, scaffold and support, but don't provide explicit instruction, let them sort of develop their own understanding, their own sense, if you will, to use the term that the brief authors use to understand conceptually what math is. And then when it's needed, deliver explicit instruction strategically, but try to really keep it on the minimum. Don't teach them the standard algorithms explicitly, don’t foster memorization, except in situations where you feel it may really be needed, then throw a few minutes of it in, right? And so that's probably what the parallel is to math, where the explicit instruction is disconnected from the themes and topics of the day and what's being taught on the other side.
And again, it's pushed down as sort of this last recourse kind of strategy. And if we do that, we know exactly what will happen, right? It will be the outcome of the reading wars, it will be the outcome of balanced literacy. We already have a math crisis.
It will be perpetuating the math crisis into the future without any improvement at all.
[00:36:53] Anna Stokke: Yeah, and I mean, the word balance, I’m always a little suspicious when I hear that or when I'm encouraged to compromise. Because think about if it was your own kid and you had a choice between instructional methods that would likely ensure that your kid is going to be really good at math and have all sorts of opportunities available to them.
Or you had the choice between that some of the time and then some other methods that likely aren't going to work towards that goal. What would you choose? Why would you compromise between good instruction and bad instruction? I've never really figured that out. And compromise is always about adults getting along.
And it shouldn't be because we are literally talking about children and their future, right? So, I mean, I agree with you. And I mean, I don't know as much about the reading as you do, but I certainly know what's going on in math. And compromise is not the answer here.
We know what works. We've got to use it.
[00:37:57] Dr. Ben Solomon: That's a great characterization of it, right? I like when you said it really seemed like the purpose was for adults to get along. Because I totally agree with you. I think if we go back to what generated balanced literacy, one side actually had a preponderance of evidence and the other side didn't. And so, you mix something very good with something that lacks evidence.
And unfortunately, you ended up with something that’s almost multiplicative. You ended up with something that lacks evidence. So, you're absolutely right. We tried the politics of the field to precedent. And unfortunately, that resulted in a lot of bad outcomes for kids.
[00:38:30] Anna Stokke: Yeah, so why do you think there are fundamental misunderstandings about explicit instruction anyway?
[00:38:36] Dr. Ben Solomon: Yeah, that's a great question.
It may help to bring up some personal experiences. I was actually on a multidisciplinary science of learning work group many years ago. And it was me.
It was a number of educational psychologists. It was another of educational technology professors, statisticians, there's real myths in there, which was the point.
And we were talking about sort of if we were to start applying for grants, what would be the focus? What would be our approach? What is our theory of learning that we would forward? And so, we're going around the table.
And I remember someone to my left mentions direct instruction. I believe they studied educational gaming. And the look of disgust on their face was just, I mean, their whole face contorted when they said explicit instruction.
And so that was really illuminating to me because as a person that my whole career has thought explicit instruction is evidence-based instruction. How could we have an issue with this? It showed me sort of what the belief structure of others within what we may call the academy are, right? They have this caricature of explicit instruction. Where they believe it is harmful, where they believe it is very boring, where they believe it is very dry, where they believe it results in very thin learning or it's rote memorization that you forget three days later, right? That's their caricature of it within their own mind because I don't think they were given proper instruction in what it truly is.
And that it does actually result in, I’m not a huge fan of this term, but I'm going to use it anyway, deep learning, right? That it does result in very long-term retention, that it does allow you to connect what you've currently learned to future lessons because you really sort of understand the interconnections of the topic. It does those things. It's been proven to do those things.
But I just don't think people have gotten instruction. What they've been taught is what their mentors taught them, right? And those mentors, especially as we go back years, were probably perhaps isolated in terms of what they study and what their beliefs are. And so those beliefs trickle down.
I once had a professor who I was talking to just casually at a meeting, look at me and say, applied behavioural analysis is really only for dogs. I was like, whoa, that's a line. ABA is a very, very highly standardized form of explicit instruction, right? And it's been an enormous gift.
We tend to attach it to students with severe disabilities, but the principles of ABA can be used to students' benefit across the skill span and has been shown actually highly effective. If you look at work from a lot of my colleagues, they’re basing their work in ABA principles and they're getting really good outcomes with students on brief practice exercises. So that was illuminating too, right?
Because again, it's this caricature of a sort of science that people sort of only, they learned enough to be dangerous, but they haven't learned really enough about it to understand its benefit. And those beliefs carry one generation to the next. So unfortunately, within schools of education, if you will, I think we still just have a lot of miscommunications about what explicit instruction is that carries down mentor to student. And we've just done a very poor job of sort of setting the record straight across various professors.
[00:41:44] Anna Stokke: We talked about the two big ones, which tend to always come up, that time test cause math anxiety and explicit instruction isn't really that helpful. And when it is, it's only for kids with disabilities, both myths. All right, so next, the myth that structured repeated practice of math facts and standard algorithms isn't useful.
You know what? I could literally write these briefs. I would know exactly what to write at this point. So, what do the briefs say about math facts and standard algorithms?
[00:42:14] Dr. Ben Solomon: Yeah, they don't say don't do it, but they definitely downplay their usefulness, and they downplay dedicating teaching time to learning them.
So just two quotes I'm going to throw out here. One from the third brief, rapid changes in technology and artificial intelligence mean that the adults of this upcoming generation will need skills of sense-making, critical interpretation, and mathematical reason and judgment, and that'll be far less common to perform precise calculations or conversions. And what I take that to mean is, oh, focus mostly on what we, I don't really still understand what this term truly is, ‘conceptual knowledge’ or quote unquote ‘meaning’, but don't worry about exact calculations because computers will do it for you.
And we've learned that's that idea. That's not a good idea because for a couple different reasons. One, the precise calculations are still very important for students to learn.
If they don't, they become very naive and are relying entirely on technology in a way that makes them very vulnerable. It also makes future learning very slow, right? Again, going back to our classic sort of times table analogy here, if students are learning algebra and they have to stop the punch in basic facts into the calculator, that is really going to hurt their ability to learn algebra because they need to be able to recall those facts instantly so they can focus on the complex procedural knowledge they're acquiring at that moment. If they have to stop the punch things into a calculator, it doesn't matter what calculator it is, that’s going to greatly inhibit their learning of more complex mathematical skills that form the basis for being competitive in STEM fields.
You don't want that. So that's number one. Number two, it's a myth that you learn concepts and underlying meaning before you learn the facts and standard algorithms.
I would argue, and frankly, I’m taking this from great discussions I’ve had with Brian Poncy, I would argue it's the reverse. You need your facts down cold to understand conceptually what the math is. So, if you want to conceptually understand what multiplication is, that's repeated summation, it actually really helps to have your facts down first because then you can recall all kinds of examples as you're developing that conceptual rationale.
It's much, much harder for students to do that when they have no examples to draw from their head in terms of what the math actually is. So, if you don't have your facts, if you don't have your standard algorithms down, it actually becomes much harder to learn the underlying concepts. So, because of those two principles, which have been validated through some great research, both in the classroom and in very tightly controlled settings in the cognitive research, that’s just, it's just flat out wrong.
You need explicit practice in math facts. You need explicit teaching and intentional meaningful practice on those algorithms over and over and over and over again until you have them cold. And that's really going to facilitate your ability to understand what those procedures are doing and then generalize them to more difficult skills.
[00:45:19] Anna Stokke: Absolutely. So, backing up on two of those things, because of course I have strong opinions about this myself. So, you know, calculators have been around forever.
This is nothing new, right? And like, really, if they were going to take the place of knowing your math facts, we’d be seeing great benefits by now, and we don't, right? And the thing to really think about is, well, yeah, you can punch in six times eight is 48, right? But it's the harder stuff, like can you factor a polynomial that have you thinking, what are the factors of 48? And how are you going to do that with a calculator? Or if you need a common denominator and your denominators are six and eight, right? That's harder to do with a calculator, but your kind of just lose your train of thought when you have to punch things into a calculator. Why do we want everyone so dependent when it's very simple to just learn your math facts? And then the other thing you mentioned about, well, I guess you're talking about conceptual understanding. I'm guessing they were pushing conceptual understanding before skill, right? Is that right?
[00:46:24] Dr. Ben Solomon: Yeah, so there's a second quote there from seven, proceduralizing a complex open-ended task by modeling a solution strategy before students have an opportunity to work on the task, right? And so, what they're really saying there is throw the task to the students, let them struggle with it, and maybe then teach them explicitly after they struggled with it, right? I guess so they interact with it so they can develop their own understanding of it.
So again, yeah, they recommend an inverted teaching strategy.
[00:46:56] Anna Stokke: Yes, okay, that is common. And you know, I would expect nothing less. It's just not the best way to teach.
So, you've talked quite a bit about this, and you've given us some good indication for why this actually goes against the evidence.
And let's talk about the next myth, and that's that discovery learning should be prioritized in the early stages of acquisition. So, did the briefs encourage discovery learning? I guess that last comment that you made, that kind of falls in that category, but is there anything else?
[00:47:28] Dr. Ben Solomon: Yeah, they use that term discovery learning, I believe a couple times. I pulled one quote from brief two, encourage learning later often through questioning and sometimes through explicit instruction.
They also emphasize open-ended learning. And so yeah, they do encourage, they also use terms like inquiry methods, cognitively demanding, emphasizing reasoning and justification for what I took as sort of synonyms with discovery learning. And they claim that you should scaffold discovery learning.
They say, no, no, the teacher should be well supporting that learning process, but they never say how. So, they don't identify how teachers should actually facilitate a discovery learning process in a meaningful way. I frankly don't know how you would.
So, they leave that very vague. And so yeah, so they encourage discovery learning throughout these briefs. And again, discovery learning, I think it's a little hard to pin down a definition because it means different things to different people.
But generally, what it means is throw the student to the problem, let them generate their own solutions based on sort of their own prior knowledge. And quote unquote, that helps them develop the sense, if you will, of what's going on with the math fact. And they can learn it in their own way and sort of a learning style kind of way.
Again, in frank contrast to explicit instruction where you model the solutions upfront to ease learning. And the research, frankly, has been very clear on this for a while. And you can look to John Hattie, he’s done a lot of work in this area. Engelman has made comments on this.
Again, they've done rigorous control trials looking at mixing the order. And if you're going to engage in discovery learning, you need to show that students are fluent on the skills before you engage in that.
And again, this sort of goes to this myth that we don't want students interacting with math in meaningful ways. We have them in a classroom, we’re teaching them these algorithms, we’re not teaching them how they're relevant. No one's saying don't do that.
No one's saying don't demonstrate to students how powerful math is and how it fuels different inventions and phenomena within nature and the sciences. No, please do that. But before you do that, you need to make sure students have a good understanding of the concepts.
Otherwise, it will be meaningless information to them. So, if you're, for example, going to have students do a field trip to a lab where a scientist is going to talk about all the math, they use that informs the discoveries within that lab, it is going to be completely lost on all those students unless they have a solid understanding of what that math is. So experiential learning, discovery learning, allowing students to sort of operate, quote unquote, as scientists within the classroom, discover the excitement of that invention, those are good things.
But before you do that, you need to make sure they understand what they're doing. When we invert it, what that actually does is that generates, math anxiety, right? That's where it comes from. You give very difficult problems to students.
You tell them to struggle with it for a while. You tell them to discover their own solutions, use their own experience, develop a sense again of what the problem is asking. And your highly achieving students will probably be able to do that even though they would have benefited from the explicit instruction before too.
But your average and lower students are going to crawl into their shell, right? They're going to become very anxious. They're going to have no idea what they're doing. They're going to get embarrassed and it's not their fault.
And that's what generates anxiety. So, this notion that we should be overemphasizing discovery learning with scaffolds that are completely left undefined in the briefs, because I have no idea how a teacher would do it. That's going to encourage, again, if we want to talk about what raises math anxiety, that’s what's going to raise math anxiety.
And that's going to result in continued stagnating of math scores. The other thing I would say there, the math scores in New York specifically, which is below the national average, or we look nationally, most students are bad at math. We call that a base rate problem.
So, when we encourage all these different practices that may not work best for highly achieving students, but at least do work for highly achieving students, that’s not addressing your current needs of your student body. What our data shows is that most students now struggle in math. So, we should be using teaching practices that works for students struggling in math, because that's your typical student now in New York and nationally.
[00:51:50] Anna Stokke: Okay, wow. So, on that note, let’s talk about the New York math scores. So, let's take a look at empirical outcomes.
What do state-level math scores reveal?
[00:52:03] Dr. Ben Solomon: They're not great. Obviously, I think I've never met a teacher that isn't concerned about this, or isn't asking for ideas, or isn't worried about how their students will do in their class and in the future. I went through the latest national assessment of educational progress scores, what we often refer to as the nation's report card, which is done every few years, and provides standardized scores across states.
It's critically important information. And based on the last NAEP, 37% of fourth grade students in New York and 26% of eighth grade students in New York were below basic proficiency, I believe. And that's lower than the national average.
I think it was just to the left of the national average. So, we're sort of right in the middle. But still, that's a pretty poor outcome.
And complicating this is that New York actually spends, I believe, more per student. We spend more money educating a given student than any other state in the nation. So, I think I did some research prior to this, prior to our discussion, and I think we're operating at about over $32,000 a student per year to educate a student in New York, on average.
Obviously, it's wildly discrepant by district. But on average, we're the highest across all states. And as far as I'm concerned, I’m all for throwing as much money into education as you can, because it pays dividends so long as it actually pays dividends, right? So, if we're going to throw $32,000 at each student, and I'll support that, we better see amazing outcomes, right? We can see amazing outcomes with $32,000 per student, on average.
But our scores have actually been stagnating over 20 years. So, whatever we're doing now isn't working. And it's not a money issue, right? In New York, again, it's very discrepant by districts.
I don't want to disrespect districts that I know are struggling with funding and income to keep their schools open. I do understand that. But on average, we have the money to solve this problem.
It's not a money issue. It's a teaching issue. And if we look to the kinds of practices that have been emphasized in curriculums in New York over the past 20 years, they lean more towards what's being recommended in these briefs.
My children are on a certain curriculum, and it does not align with the science of reading, or the science of math. It emphasizes a lot of these practices that we've just discussed. It emphasizes sort of exploring, sort of, and providing very hard problems up front.
It doesn't offer a lot of practice. It doesn't offer timed assessment or speeded practice. And frankly, a lot of students in the district are really struggling with math.
And I think it has something to do with the curriculum. And those curriculums tie back to the New York State Next Generation Standards, right? If you look at the New York Next Generation Standards, again, it's sort of like a balanced math kind of thing, right? They do emphasize some memorization, but they also encourage you not to, they encourage math fluency. They encourage you to know your math facts, but they'd rather you not do it throughout practice.
They'd rather you do it through what I jokingly call epiphany. So, there's a huge, and they encourage multiple strategies, productive struggle, that kind of thing. And so, we see these sort of, this balanced math standards, which inform these sorts of balanced math curriculums, which are bought at great cost for students in New York State. And, you know, for 20 years now, we’ve seen stagnating math scores. And when we look to, most states are struggling with math, but when we do see outliers, they tend to be using very explicit instruction. They tend to be focusing on learning math facts.
They tend to be using highly standardized programs and teaching their teachers well on those programs. We have the data to show what works. We're just really struggling to implement it.
So, in New York, the situation is not good right now. And it's not going to be better until we, as you put it, don’t settle on a middle ground approach. We really do what has been shown to work.
[00:55:54] Anna Stokke: So what you just described there, by the way, I just want to back up and pick up on something you said about how it's okay if they learn their math facts, as long as they do it through these exploratory methods and multiple strategies, that's what I'd call balanced math. And just think about this for a minute. So, you could use methods that work really well, like the methods that I talked about with Brian Poncy, cover, copy, compare, tape practice, flashcards, time practice.
And maybe that kid would learn their math facts in two weeks, right? Or you can use these other methods and maybe it would take two months. Maybe it'll never happen.
[00:56:34] Dr. Ben Solomon: Or more. If you look at the next standards, they actually talk about it over years.
[00:56:38] Anna Stokke: Oh yeah. I mean, actually here in Canada, some of the curricula say, actually at grade five, it’s not intended that they should memorize their math facts because they're doing all these exploratory things.
Why would you do that, right? If you could literally use methods that would allow the kids to know their math facts in two weeks, and then they could do all this other stuff with them, why wouldn't you do that? It literally makes no sense.
[00:57:03] Dr. Ben Solomon: And I've walked into a lot of classrooms in my day. You can tell the difference within 30 seconds of being in that classroom during a math lesson, right? So, I walk into a classroom and they're using a math fluency program.
And there's a couple that are offered and they're engaging in their math instruction. And I'm not trying to be exaggerated. Those kids are smiling as they're learning math, right? They're very confident.
When students know their math facts, they feel very confident in their math ability, and they accept new information much faster and with a much more productive spirit. If you will, they have confidence. They're more on task.
They like showing off what they know. And you walk into other classrooms. And again, I don't fault the teachers for this.
I mostly fault the curriculums where they don't have that speeded practice daily. And you can just see the difference on their faces. You have a couple of kids that are doing just fine, right? They acquire math as sort of one trial learning, if you will.
But they're bored because the teacher has to focus so much on the 80% of the struggling kids in the classroom who haven't learned their math facts. And now you're engaging them in a complicated lesson from this curriculum that's going over all their heads. And it's just a very different feeling. And I encourage people if you have access to classrooms to do it. You can walk into these different classrooms based on different teaching strategies. And even without seeing the data, you can just feel the difference in a classroom within seconds.
[00:58:24] Anna Stokke: Wow. So, you've responded publicly, right? So, you've got this petition, and we are going to encourage people to sign this petition.
So, sign it if you're in New York. Sign it if you're a person who knows a lot about math, like me or if you're a school psychologist or somebody who knows a lot about teaching math, we’re encouraging everyone to sign. And so, you are calling for these briefs to be retracted and replaced.
So, what do you think the replacement documents should look like?
[00:58:56] Dr. Ben Solomon: I think the replacement documents should double down on evidence-based practices, right? As you said, not strike a middle ground. Say like, hey, there's a couple thousand articles on the best way to teach math to elementary, middle and high school students. And based on the preponderance of the evidence, this is what we should be doing, right? It's really critical that students learn their math facts.
And here are really the dates, if you will, by which they should have those math facts down, right? They shouldn't be leaving third grade without having their times table down. They shouldn't be exiting second grade without being very fluent on one by one, two by one subtraction. Put those dates down.
And as you just pointed out in terms of your discussions with Brian Poncy, emphasize the exact practices that should be used and provide materials, provide scripts, because teachers are very busy people. You can't just provide these broad recommendations to them and be like, okay, we’ve given you the general gist, now go figure it out. No, provide them exact routines that they can carry into their classrooms to make it as easy for them to do that job, okay?
So, emphasize the teaching of standard algorithms, emphasize the memorization of math facts early on. It is fun, it can be quick. This is not a Bueller, Bueller, kind of where everyone's sort of drooling on their desk with their elbows down. Students, when it's done in the right way and it's quick and speeded, students get really engaged in this.
And also double down on the emphasis on explicit instruction and how across the entire grade span, it should be your foundation for how you introduce new skills. And by all means, in the quote unquote revised briefs, discuss how the importance of having students have contact with how math is used in the real world, right?
How these skills will benefit them in the future, the excitement of discovery. Yeah, do that. But make it clear where in the learning sequence it should occur. So overall, I would say if there were replacement briefs, it should really sort of outline what the state of the science actually says, but it also should be far more specific in what teachers should actually do in the classroom to make it happen. Part of my frustration with these briefs was that they were vague and they talk sort of theoretically about these very broad and very tricky concepts.
And I have no idea how a teacher would translate that to a classroom or at least not without exhaustive effort. So, they need to get also far more specific in terms of what teachers should do. And again, have it backed up by really good science, so it forms a cohesive scientific argument. I don't see any reason why that would be difficult. We've done it already, not within state briefs per se, but in terms of, if you look at the What Works Clearinghouse, if you look at the National Center for Intensive Intervention, if you look at documents, other sort of summary articles produced across a number of wonderful colleagues of mine, we've explicated sort of what needs to happen. So just do that.
It certainly is achievable.
[1:01:48] Anna Stokke: Yeah, and I think one thing I would recommend if you're a policymaker listening to this, it might be a good idea to just cast a wider net when you're consulting people. They maybe need to include some different voices.
People like you or Brian Poncy or Amanda Vanderheyden who know that research really well, I think that would really help with some of these policy documents we're seeing that just really, they claim to be scientific, but it's actually pseudoscience. I think casting a wider net would be a good idea. What do you think?
[1:02:24] Dr. Ben Solomon: Yeah, I do want to acknowledge probably how hard it is from the state side to get through this, right? Because if you don't have good training, you’re looking at all these different groups that do professional development and you're going, oh, okay, this group has done a lot of professional development.
I see they've written a lot of stuff. This seems like a really shiny toy. So, I'm going to call them because based on everything I know, they seem very productive, right? That's going to be really hard for someone who has to make the very difficult decision to pick in terms of which vendors they need to pick.
I require someone who's trained in the science to be able to get through what is unfortunately a pretty sort of murky marsh, if you will, in terms of all the people that would accept payment to do this kind of thing. So, what I would beg policymakers, as you said, is cast a wide net. And to the degree you can, look to well-trusted resource centres and look who's contributing to those resource centres to get a sense of what's going on there.
But I do acknowledge that it is quite tricky because unfortunately you have a lot of people offering their services in this area. And many of them are emphasizing bad practice, as was the case in the reading world. I know probably many of your listeners have listened to Amelie Hanford’s, I sold the story, and you know, that whole thing was on a set of vendors that had become millionaires off of bad practice.
And for the people that were for school districts that were choosing vendors, I can see why it was so alluring to pick those specific people, right?
They just didn't have the background knowledge in those areas to really sort of see the difference between the subtleties. So, I can totally appreciate how in the math world, it’s even a murkier situation. But the good news is that we do know what to do to teach math well.
It is there and we have people that know it. So, you just need to find the right resources, make sure you take your time doing it, get different opinions from different people, look locally, look nationally, to get a sense of what's going on because you do need to put some good thought into it. Because there are a lot of people that offer professional development and its sort of a bit of a wild, wild west.
[1:04:30] Anna Stokke: Yeah. And you know what? Nick Gibb, who was England's Minister of State for Schools, I think that's how it said, he figured out how to get past the noise. And he managed to figure out what people to work with, to get evidence-based curricula and practices in the schools. And as a result, England's seen rise in scores, like they're fourth in the world in reading on PEARLS now, right? And I'm going to put a link to that episode because if you're a policymaker, every policymaker should listen to that one.
[1:05:06] Dr. Ben Solomon: Not to advertise Chalk & Talk within Chalk & Talk, but you've brought on so many wonderful people who know this body of research and literature cold. This podcast is just a fantastic resource if you go through the episodes to identify who really knows how to educate a child well in math.
[1:05:23] Anna Stokke: I do my best and it's because of people like you that we're getting the message out there. So, we should wrap up, Ben. I think we've made a good case for why we need to petition to retract the New York math briefs.
And so, what can people do? What can we do to help?
[1:05:42] Dr. Ben Solomon: Well, as you stated, first things first, please sign the petition. You can sign it with a public signature, or you can sign it confidentially, which I don't think is super clear.
But there's an option if you sign the brief to sign it confidentially such that I see the total number of people that have signed it, but it doesn't put your signature up front. And I completely understand that because I know for a lot of New York teachers and administrators, it’s a little nerve wracking to put your name publicly when this document is going to New York State Education Department. I completely get that. So please sign it.
Please feel free to reach out to me. I'm happy to talk to anyone. My goal here is not to create conflict.
My goal here is not to stir the pot. I'd rather not. There's nothing really in it for me, except sort of a moral obligation to do this on behalf of my kids and behalf of my field and on behalf of the kids in the state I reside.
I'm not trying to stir a pot here. I'm hoping New York can come out of this much stronger and better. And we certainly have the resources and knowledge and skill and talent amongst, in our educational community to get this done in an effective way.
I just feel like they need a nudge. So that's my goal here is for New York State, in terms of our education system, to come out stronger with kids that are better at math and happier and more confident with it. So, in summary, please sign the petition. Please share it. I feel like that's really important. We need to do a bit of a snowball, snowball sampling here to get this going.
So, if you sign it and if you feel comfortable, please share it on social media. And if you have any questions, please email me. I'm happy to talk to anyone.
I'm happy to come into a group and talk to them about what the importance is. So be an active participant. And if you're a New York resident, it doesn't matter whether you have a kid in the system or not.
You're a stakeholder in this, right? Your taxes are going to pay for New York State Education Department. You will be supported by children that are going through the New York State education system that will become New York professionals, right? Later on, every New York State citizen has a stake in this. And I think it's also a good bellwether for the country, right? If we can get really good policy and practice recommendations in New York, I think it's a shining example to the country that this can be done just like you brought up with England.
And look how quickly the scores went up, right? It was pretty quick response there just based on following sound science and logic. So, I think that that'd be such a fantastic thing for New York to help lead the way when it comes to math. We've done it in reading.
We have states that are very good examples of adopting the science of reading. We have great districts that have done it. But math, unfortunately, again, we’re years and years and years behind.
So that's the bad news. But the good news is there's an opportunity here to really carve out, to really be the role model for how to teach children with very strong, robust math skills. So, New York most certainly has the capability to do this.
We just need to organize and get our heads on straight and follow the science. And thankfully, like I said, that science is well laid out.
[1:08:40] Anna Stokke: Okay, well, Ben, and thank you so much for getting out there, putting yourself out there, because it's not easy, actually, to be an advocate and advocate for something that you believe in.
I mean, you want to do it, but it's not easy. And we really appreciate your work. And I want to thank you so much for coming on to talk about it. And we'll do everything we can to help.
[1:09:01] Dr. Ben Solomon: Oh, it was a pleasure, Anna. Thank you so much for giving me the forum to do it.
I think you have a great audience. I'm hoping your audience can participate in this for the betterment of children everywhere. And again, I just so appreciate the opportunity to get the message across.
[1:09:14] Anna Stokke: Absolutely. Thank you, Ben. If you enjoy this podcast, please consider showing your support by leaving a five-star review on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
Subscribe on your favourite podcast app to get new episodes delivered as they become available. Chalk & Talk is produced by me, Anna Stokke. You can follow me on X or LinkedIn for notifications or check out my website, annastocke.com for more information.
This podcast received funding through University of Winnipeg Knowledge Mobilization and Community Impact Grant funded through the Anthony Swaity Knowledge Impact Fund.