Note: This one is a complete rewrite of an earlier version under the same name.
Three years ago, I worked at a charter school in Minnesota that served students who dropped out of the public school system, some with a criminal record as a student teacher in a 9th-grade math class. These students were high schoolers by age but were left far behind their peers in public schools in terms of their math abilities. To contextualize, at the 9th-grade level, they were still struggling with basic math operations. For example, when most high schoolers are already familiar with algebra, these students were learning two-digit multiplications and divisions.
After half a year of working there, I discovered that the pervasive belief that success is not for these students played an important role in these students’ low math performance. This stayed true for both sides. The words I heard the most from students were negative statements, such as I don’t know and I can’t understand. Some students would begin to put their heads on the table or look at their cell phones as soon as they read a question. When I came to them trying to help them with a question, they would stare at me with confused eyes and in some cases, ask me to leave them alone. The message was clear–they didn’t want to work on the problem and they didn’t want my help. Coupled with their low expectations were teachers' low confidence in these students. In one class, the teacher said to me that “You know, these kids are not going to go to college.” What he implied was that these students wouldn’t succeed in math because they do not have the capacity to excel in the subject. The result was foreseeable when both sides perceived math instruction/learning in a pessimistic way.
When a deficit-oriented model, which emphasizes what students can’t do and failed to do, is in place in a classroom like the one I described, students internalize the negative message of their teachers, react to labels that characterize them as low-achievers and troublemakers, and reinforce the belief that success is not for them. The thinking blames students for their failure and creates an environment of exclusion and isolation. Consequentially, it leads to the persistence of low academic achievement and an expansion of the achievement gap.
On the other side of the deficit mindset is the asset-based mindset, which highlights what students can do and succeed in doing. The approach acknowledges that teachers’ perceptions and expectations of their students are salient factors of students’ educational outcomes and is driven by the belief that every student can learn, regardless of their race and socioeconomic status. Theoretically, the framework centers around external assets, such as students' connections with their family and community, and intrinsic assets, such as instilling learning abilities, positive values, and social skills. By putting teachers’ attention not only on students’ academic grades but also on who they are personally, the mindset also fosters the personal power of our students–their zest, grit, and talents.
One pedagogy that applies the asset-centered mindset is culturally responsive teaching (CRT), which calls for embedding students’ cultural and social backgrounds in lessons. Coined by researcher Gloria Ladson-Billings in 1995, the original framework has three components: emphasizing academic learning, developing students’ cultural competencies, and reinforcing their critical consciousness to analyze real-world problems. Gloria’s framework is expanded by New America, a DC-based think tank, which adds other competencies, for instance, corroborating with families and communities and respecting students’ personal differences, to the model. The framework is rooted in psychological research that says people process information to the best extent when they can link the knowledge to their life, and a number of studies have linked the adoption of this model to positive educational outcomes including stronger academic performance, increasing interest in the subject, lower school truancy, and a growing sense of belonging in schools.
To implement the philosophy into classrooms, teachers should make an effort to understand the cultural and social backgrounds of each student, use examples relevant to students’ lives in classes, and foster a safe and diverse environment through relationship-building and well-designed activities. These strategies are prone to be easier for human subjects like the English language and social studies but are not impossible in evidence-based subjects like math.
Teachers can start by designing in-class activities that are grounded in math concepts but connect closely with students’ lives. For example, to help students understand linear equations, math teachers can borrow examples from students’ communities, such as the bus fare of going to a local festival. Teachers can also encourage students to be creative, for example, by asking students to create a linear relationship problem through words, photos, and video clips. It may also be a great idea to talk about multicultural literature or stories, a solution that has been proven effective in practice. For more inspiration, the book Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers shared a variety of examples used by math teachers across different grade levels.
Additionally, math teachers may benefit from relationship-building with their students. Students often perceive math teachers as cold, unapproachable, and unhumorous and math knowledge as dry and boring. Compared to English and social studies, math is based on proof and logic, however, the rigorousness of the subject should not be an excuse for making math uninclusive and unfriendly. Teachers should work closely with students to go into their lives and understand their struggles and passions. When I was interning with Innocent Classroom, an organization dedicated to dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline through building student-teacher relationships, we recommended every teacher and educator find at least one student per week to have an in-depth conversation. The talk should have the goal of knowing this student so that the teacher can sit in the student’s shoes when a problem, such as a fall in the grade, arises. When the bond is forged, students develop stronger learning skills because they feel safe and belonged.
Math is not a cold subject. Instead, it’s warm. As a data science student with an activism background, one reason that motivated me to go down this path is that I know math can bring changes. From government to nonprofits, policymakers and community leaders use math to comprehend problems people are facing and produce targeted solutions that will help communities out of poverty, reduce crime rates, and solve homelessness. Math teachers should have students feel what I am feeling. Instead of being insulated from social justice, math teaching should engage students through social justice and social life-relevant examples and activities. A myriad of teachers have shown this is possible, and much research has shown this is important. By adopting a culturally responsive pedagogy, students develop a critical lens on social problems while mastering useful math skills.
Math is and should not be the antonym of social justice.