Lessons From the Russian School of Mathematics
I recently spent a long weekend in MA visiting a couple of friends and their two children. Their 6 year old son happens to be gifted (Is it OK to say gifted? Doesn't sound so p.c. What’s a good word to describe a first grader who’s enjoyed reading chapter books to himself for years and loves to add sets of three-digit numbers in his head for fun?) Anyhow, his parents are concerned that he isn’t receiving enough stimulation in his public school classroom, and are considering extra programs to enrich his learning. His father mentioned that a program called the Russian School of Mathematics is all the rage, and I made a mental note to myself to check it out. It so happens that the Boston Globe just featured an article about said school which appears to have a lot of lessons to teach about math education – and I don’t just mean to its students.
First, the skinny on the school: The school began 12 years ago when founder Inessa Rifkin decided to start her own math class for her son and his teenage friends who were underachieving. The school has since grown to include 1,800 K-12 students at its location in Newton, Mass, as well as branches in two other cities in Mass, one in San Jose, Calif., and a summer camp in New Hampshire. Up until 7th grade, kids take classes for 2 hours per week and do an hour of homework. Older kids do double the work.
I’ve said before that the key to reforming education is to focus on where the rubber meets the road: the interface between teachers and students. What impresses me most about the school is its approach to curriculum and pedagogy. Teachers assess each student’s level, and then assign problems that build upon previously learned material and become progressively more complex. So children can’t move forward until they’ve mastered earlier material, and there are no gaps in their learning. In addition, knowledge is not delivered to students via lessons from teachers but constructed by students themselves who spend class time puzzling through problems while teachers circulate among them to monitor progress and help them through rough patches without feeding them answers. Memorization of formulas is discouraged - when children learn something, they truly understand it. As far as curriculum goes, depth is the name of the game – not breadth. Students focus on 4-5 topics per year with a strong emphasis on algebra and geometry.
I’m not surprised that the school successfully teaches basic algebra concepts to children as young as 5 years old – not all of whom are as gifted (?) as my friend’s son – and that Rifkin insists that all children can learn to do math well. While Charles Murray would probably disagree (see previous post), I think this building-block approach to learning that lets children build progressively on what they already know and challenges them to construct knowledge and think for themselves is the key to educating all children well. (For a striking example, read Marva Collins’ account of teaching low-performing children Shakespeare.) Further, I wish this depth vs. breadth approach could be incorporated into President Obama’s call for national standards and better assessments. Why is American curriculum, as Rifkin says, “a mile wide and one inch deep”? What if assessments could measure deeper learning of fewer concepts? Wouldn’t our kids be better off?
takepart in learning more about the move towards national standards, and advancements in the field of assessment. Also, here’s a great Ed Week article on accountability, high stakes testing, and math/science education.
- Categories: Education
I attended this school for eleven years, and am proud to say that it helped me immensely not only in high school, but also in my way of thinking about everyday things. Because I started so early, just as you mentioned, there were no gaps in my mathematical education. For some kids with whom I went to high school, math was the hardest subject; nothing seemed to make sense and it was a struggle to do simple algebra. It always amazed me how the teacher expected them to understand derivatives without first understanding the rules of a simple equation, let alone how to solve fractions or logs. I saw this even in my freshman year of college; students were struggling to make connections in their mind about more difficult mathematics. This is where the school comes in. Because they teach everything not as a rule, but as something that always has a REASON for being true, this taught me not only to question things in the classroom, but in daily life as well. I strongly recommend this school for anyone who wishes to be challenged, is struggling, or hates math. This school will change the way you think about mathematics in the best way possible.
I agree! Especially to your point about public schools catering to mediocrity. Thanks for your post!
First of all, that sounds like a lovely family you met in MA.
I understand your problem with the word gifted, as I believe all children are wonderful gifts in some way or another. But we will use that term for the more advanced and quicker learning students, for lack of a better one.
The fact that public schools cater to mediocrity or to a lowest common denominator is a major problem, not just for the gifted students, but for others as well. It can be a challenge to even determine who is gifted if no challenge itself is offered to the students. Not all brains function equally, that is life, but we can work to bring out the best for all levels of brain capacity. Schools usually have extra help to make sure those having trouble do not get left behind, which is great, and for them just keeping up might be doing the best they can. but do we not want all the children to have an opportunity to be doing the best they can? In order to do that, teachers need better training, classes need to be smaller, and systematic programs need to be in place to deal with students at all different levels.
It would be nice, since Obama has stated that educations is a priority, to see money going to save our schools, rather than to save big corporations that have run themselves into the ground.