In a recent conversation, educator Alex Baron and math teacher Barry Garelick shared insights on the concept of ‘high-quality instructional materials’ (HQIM) in education. Garelick, a veteran math teacher for grades 7 and 8, expressed skepticism about the blanket designation of many instructional materials as ‘high quality.’ He emphasized that the evaluation of these materials often relies on superficial metrics, rather than their actual effectiveness in promoting rigorous learning.
In his correspondence, Garelick highlighted his long-standing dissatisfaction with math textbooks that adhere strictly to state standards, many of which are rooted in the Common Core framework. He pointed out that what is often deemed ‘high quality’ can sometimes reflect a narrow adherence to those standards rather than true educational effectiveness.
Many educators, including Garelick, take a proactive approach to instructional materials by supplementing official textbooks with other resources they find more effective. He described this practice as a form of civil disobedience, arguing that teachers should not feel compelled to use the ‘latest shiny new thing’ that may detract from actual learning.
A significant concern raised by Garelick was the influence of educational reform ideologies embedded within the Common Core standards. He referred to the so-called ‘dog whistles’ that prioritize conceptual understanding over procedural fluency in teaching math. This, he argues, dilutes the learning experience for students by delaying the introduction of standard algorithms and prioritizing alternative methods instead.
Garelick elaborated on how the Common Core standards treat the teaching of standard algorithms, suggesting that while these algorithms can be taught in Grade 4, the curriculum often introduces alternative strategies before allowing students to master the standard algorithm. This method, according to Garelick, ultimately undermines students’ learning by presenting the standard algorithm as just another option rather than the primary and most effective method for solving arithmetic problems.
Moreover, he criticized the reliance on organizations like EdReports, which assign grades to textbooks based merely on alignment with the Common Core criteria. Garelick argued that such evaluations do not adequately consider proven educational outcomes or how students actually learn best.
The implications of the current educational practices, as observed by Garelick, stem from the training received by many new teachers. He contended that teachers emerge from education programs with ingrained beliefs in the effectiveness of reform-oriented pedagogy and a dismissal of traditional teaching methods. This often leads to a reinforcement of the very practices that may not yield the best results for student learning.
To reinforce his argument, Garelick referenced research on effective teaching strategies, noting works by authors such as Carl Hendrick, Paul Kirschner, Tom Sherrington, and Zach Groshell. These researchers advocate for evidence-based practices that align teaching with cognitive science and learning principles. Their work underscores the importance of structuring information in manageable chunks, gradually increasing difficulty, and ensuring conceptual anchors like standard algorithms are established before introducing alternative strategies.
Garelick’s perspective calls for a reassessment of what constitutes ‘high-quality’ instructional materials. He believes that high quality should focus solely on resources that build students’ skills effectively and align with proven learning strategies, rather than conforming to potentially flawed educational standards.
He argues for a genuine evaluation shift that prioritizes educational efficacy over mere alignment with the Common Core or other standard frameworks.
Ultimately, this ongoing debate raises critical questions about how best to approach math education, ensuring that students acquire the skills they need to succeed. Garelick’s views provide a compelling critique of current pedagogical trends and invoke a reassessment of how we define and assess educational materials in a rapidly evolving instructional landscape.
image source from：edweek
