A Pedagogical Messaging Working Group
by Leah Gaines, Michael Lolkus, Nick Love, Jeremiah Morgan, & Rhonda Pierre

This summer, CPM curriculum developer and researcher Michael Lolkus joined CPM’s Teacher Research Community (TRC) in reading Dr. Ilana Horn’s (2007) article, Fast Kids, Slow Kids, Lazy Kids: Framing the Mismatch Problem in Mathematics Teachers’ Conversations. A central argument in Dr. Horn’s paper is that the language we use to discuss students reflects our beliefs about them and their capabilities (i.e., our “category systems”). The discussions about this article at TRC sparked Lolkus to reflect on the category systems he draws on when discussing teachers and students, and what that reveals about his underlying beliefs. For instance, Lolkus repeatedly referred to teachers returning to the program as “veterans.” In isolation, this term is not inherently negative. The word “veteran” is part of a broader militaristic category system, and military veterans are often honored and revered. However, we now recognize that much of the language used to describe mathematics teaching and learning draws on militarized references that do not reflect the goals of teaching and learning in inclusive environments. In terms of Horn’s paper, in a militarized category system, teachers are considered as working in the “trenches” or on the “front lines,” and research and professional learning investigate and elevate “battle-tested” innovations. These descriptions frame schools as war zones and teachers as soldiers.

Those of you who follow CPM’s Teacher Research Community may have noticed that the program recently changed its name from the previous Teacher Research Corps. “Corps” is also a military term, used to denote a specific organized military unit, with its etymology stemming from the Latin word for body (e.g., a body of troops). Conversely, “community” evokes feelings of responsiveness, mutual support, and a sense of family. 

We believe that the category systems we use make a difference in how we go through the world as individuals and how we engage in our work as mathematics educators. For example, what if an argument wasn’t a battle to be won but a dance between two cooperative parties? How might different metaphors shift our attitudes and treatment of each other (e.g., Lakoff & Núñez, 2013)? We can do similar thought experiences with our category systems in education. Shifting our category systems won’t be easy: the militaristic metaphors are deeply rooted, as conceptions of teaching have historically been closely tied to national defense. For instance, under the direction of Terrell Bell, the National Commission on Educational Excellence’s release of A Nation at Risk in 1983 stoked fear that the United States would lose international competitions to Russia and Japan, amidst the backdrop of the Cold War. Similarly, George W. Bush’s reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, drew on militarized language akin to the “Leave No Man Behind” culture maintained in the armed forces. The list goes on.

International Competition and Dominance → Care and Concern

As we consider aligning the category systems we use in everyday conversations with research-informed visions for a more just and humanizing mathematics education, we are reminded of Shirin Vossoughi & Sepehr Vakil’s (2018, p. 15) reimagined goals and purposes of working toward racial diversity within STEM. These reimagined goals and purposes pivot from the language of international competition and dominance to care and concern. The table below uses their ideas to juxtapose two different perspectives on the value of diversity in classrooms and the workforce—competition versus deep moral concern. 

What’s Next?

Consider the terms provided in the following table. Share suggestions for alternative terms or phrases that might more accurately reflect mathematics teaching and learning that centers on students’ histories and humanities. 

The Pedagogical Messaging Working Group consists of representatives from CPM’s Curriculum, Marketing, Professional Learning, and Research teams who come together to discuss communication about mathematics teaching and learning.

References

Horn, Ilana S. (2007). Fast kids, slow kids, lazy kids: Framing the mismatch problem in mathematics teachers’ conversations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 37–79.

Lakoff, George, & Núñez, Rafael E. (2013). The metaphorical structure of mathematics: Sketching out cognitive foundations for a mind-based mathematics. In Lyn D. English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images (pp. 21–85). Routledge.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113–130. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001303 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq.

Vossoughi, Shirin, & Sepehr Vakil (2018). Toward what ends? A critical analysis of militarism, equity, and STEM education. In Arsahd Imtiaz Ali & Tracy Lachica Buenavista (Eds.), Education at war: The fight for students of color in America’s public schools. Fordham University Press.