Three Wise Teacher Project: What Can These Resources Teach You?

About a month ago I was tasked with reaching out to three teachers that influenced me on my path to becoming an educator, thanking them, and asking them if they had any resources that they would like to share. Though originally I thought it more so a project based around letting those who influenced us know about the impact that they have had in our lives and our career aspirations, the project turned out to be something greater than what I initially imagined it to be. The "Three Wise Teacher Project" acted more as a stepping stone for us, as pre-service teachers, to figure out what influenced the teachers that influenced us.

As I wrote in my previous blog post describing the project, I reached out to three ladies whom, had I not had the luxury of studying under/working with them I do not know if I would be in college, or on the path to becoming an educator.

First, I reached out to Clarissa Thompson, a professor at UMF who taught my EDU102/103 course during my first semester of college. Clarissa, who I swear to god is a walking dictionary of education-related resources, pointed me in the direction of a podcast episode produced by the Cult of Pedagogy, hosted by Jennifer Gonzalez, specifically focused on a Fellowship Program designed by Math for America (MƒA). With the focus on profession development (PD) of proven-successful teachers (that is, teachers not within their first five years teaching, and who have been shown to be successful in terms of content instruction), the Fellowship program designed by MƒA works to help successful teachers receive the support they need as they move away from the "sit and get" model of PD. With the Fellowship Model, as Gonzalez describes it, being based around the system of same-concentration community development MƒA acts as a support system for teachers as they continue with their personal development through cutting-edge classes and instructional opportunities that allow these teachers to continue to learn, as well as gives ample opportunity to lead.

With the concentration of the podcast being based on the Fellowship Model itself versus the program offered by MƒA, the overall theme of the episode was the benefits of being involved with such an organization/program that gives experienced professional teachers the opportunity to continue learning, regardless of concentration area. As it is described in the episode, teachers need the exposure and the opportunity to "do" their concentration. Teachers are expected to be able to teach the material of their concentration area, correct? Then how are they to keep up-to-date with the newest improvements/discoveries in their concentration area if they do not have the opportunity to work with new material? By providing teachers the opportunity to step into the role of students again to learn about the developments in their field by offering a variety of courses based around the interests of their teachers involves, MƒA acts as a facilitator for continued professional development, as the Fellows have the opportunity to learn about on anything they'd like, ranging from concentration-specific material to different pedagogical strategies that gives them a different lens to approach their subject with. I loved this podcast, as it gave me the opportunity to think about my future as an educator, as well as ways for me to continue in my development as a teacher that will ultimately benefit my students.

Clarissa also referred me to the website specific to math-concentrations, https://www.youcubed.org. Being founded by a woman whom she had her EDU102/103 students read, Jo Boaler. Clarissa made a point to refer me to this website, as Boaler explores the world of mathematics education and the significance of mathematics-educational practices that influence a students willingness to learn/develop their mathematic skills- a topic that fascinates me. Specifically, I read an article from the website titled Ability and Mathematics: the mindset revolution that is reshaping education, written by Boaler herself. If you ask a group of people what they think of math, a majority you'll get responses along the line like "ewwwwwww... I hate math!", "I am so bad at math,", and my personal favorite: "I am NOT a math person!". Math, in today's society, is given the stink eye, as most people do not see the significance, nor the reason for mathematics education. In my experience, these people who do not like math struggle with math, and therefore hate math because they do not understand it.

Cyclical idea, right?


In this article, Boaler explores the significance between the grouping-by-level system in place in the United State and in England, and the influence of a students mindset (i.e. fixed and growth mindsets) in regards to their success in the course. Boaler explains that, when students are separated and put into classes based upon their ability to handle the academic rigor, this communicates to the student that they are defined by their outwardly displayed "intelligence" (their ability to perform in academics), which is determined by other (their teachers and administrators).


Grouping high achieving students with high achievement students, and low-achieving students with low-achieving students, the grouping model that schools enact is based on the idea that by putting students into classrooms based on ability allows for educators to alter the course material in a way that will reach the greatest number of students, while not preventing the academic growth of others. Ironically, numerous studies have shown that academically separated classrooms fair worse than mixed-ability classrooms: “the impact of different ability grouping practices have shown that when schools abandon ability grouping practice and move to mixed or heterogeneous grouping, achievement and participation improves significantly” (Boaler 147). Though the idea of leveled classes, in theory, is in the best interest of the student, some students often feel isolated from their academically-different peers, and indirectly told that their ability to handle rigor is static, meaning that they are unable to jump from a lower-level class to a higher level class.

By creating such a structured classroom environment based upon a students ability to handle academic rigor, students are then “stuck” in a class that defines them as a label, which in turn influences their mindset. “Smart” students take Honors level courses, “normal” students take College Prep, and “dumb” students take Applied-level courses. Though it is not said, it is an unwritten code that the level-course you take what what you are, “smart,” “normal” or “dumb.” Regardless of the name of the class, regardless what a group of students is called, all students defined by their performance in a class, versus their capabilities and their drive to succeed. All students, in all levels, feel this stereotype, not just low-achieving students. In schools utilizing a grouping model, it is not uncommon to see high-achieving students shut down when they do not understand something. These high achieving students, when they don’t understand the material, will feel stupid, because “only smart kids take Honors,” and if they were really smart, would they really be struggling with the material?

By not divide students into classes based on their perceived ability to handle academic rigor, students have the opportunity to collaborate with academically-different peers, meaning low-achieving students can work with high-achieving students, which not only encourages the development of peer relations, but also eliminates the idea that students have different "worths" as students of all academic levels are in the same class. Further, by placing mixed ability students into a single classroom, this further stimulates the development of growth mindsets, as low-achieving students see themselves performing the same work as high-achieving students, indirectly communicating to the student that they, too, are capable of the same work as their peers, regardless of their academic past. Mindset is everything, and by allowing student the opportunity to mingle and work with various-leveled peers, this contributes to their success in and out of the mathematics classroom.

I found this article very interesting, given that I attended a class that utilized the leveled classroom model, and my Practicum placement is in a school that too follows this model. Though I have not experienced the negative impact that Boaler makes not of in the article, I am able to look back and reflect on my time as a student, when I felt that I needed to match the academic-ability of my peers, though I may not have necessarily been on level with them. While I do understand where she comes from, as a teacher, I feel that dividing students based on ability to handle academic provides them a class that tailored to their currently academic level. Some students may need extra guidance on specific material, while other students may be ready to move on after they are first exposed to it. The downside to mixed-ability classrooms is that if some students are ready to move on, while others are not, the teacher must go at the speed of the lowest achieving student, therefore limiting the potential learning of others. Though it something I have experience first-hand, I still am trying to wrap my head around this idea, and would be very interested in spending time in a school with a mixed-classroom model.

After reaching out to Clarissa, I reached out to Elyse Pratt-Ronco, the Assistant Director of the UMF TRIO Upward Bound Program, which I was a member of for the entirety of my high-school career. As Upward Bound is a program designed to aid low-income first-generation college students as they get their foot-in-the-door to post-secondary education, I strongly believe that had I not participated in this program, I would not be where I am today, both as a college student, as well a person studying to becoming Math Teacher. During Upward Bound, I ended up discovering a passion for learning about economic inequalities in education (both secondary and post-secondary). Given that Elyse working specifically with students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, she is well versed in the resources for working with students from said background.

Having formed a close bond with Elyse through my time during UB, she knows of my passion for socio-economic disadvantages in education, as well as my intention to stay and to teach in Maine upon graduation from UMF. Therefore, she suggested I read the book Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol. Given how a large percentage of Maine students are labeled as low-income (and first-gen), Elyse recommended the book based on the very real demographics of Maine, as it will directly influence the kinds of students I will have in the future. Having read the first five chapters, I can attest to how phenomenal this book is. Though it focuses on socioeconomic inequalities found in urban areas, this book gives a powerful insight as to the reality that some students experience, in both their personal lives, but as well as their experiences in schools. Specifically, the book focuses on the economic struggles that minority students face, as well as to how race plays into the injustice within the school setting. In my opinion, it is important to recognize and to be able to adjust your curriculum based on the background and the needs of your students. Further, I feel that it's important to recognize that, while you may feel that you're lacking the resources needed to properly teach your class, that some schools can't afford to higher enough teachers to have someone sit in and monitor a study hall, provide heat for the building, or even fix the holes in the building that let in rain and other weather.