Discontinuing the grade four math test - Big step, wrong direction

In reference to the article published in The Sunday Gleaner on December 4, 2011, titled 'Discontinue grade-four math test', I somehow feel propelled to respond to the issues presented. Being an educator who is operating in the capacity of a teacher of grade four, it is my intention to defend the stance that the discontinuation of the grade-four administered General Achievement in Numeracy Test (GAIN) is not the best solution to developing mathematically competent students.

Like Edward Seaga and Dr Camella Buddo, I, too, am in agreement that the primary-education system is depriving students of their childhood by placing too much emphasis on their preparation for and their performance in the Grade Six Achievement Test. I vehemently subscribe to the belief that large class size, non-availability of appropriate resources, high percentages of non-readers, among other factors as outlined in the article, have negatively impacted on the teaching of mathematics. I also endorse that these are real issues plaguing the school system, and no well-thinking person should doubt or dispute the impact of these variables. The question I would like to pose is: Do these factors only affect the teaching of mathematics? I would want to believe that these are issues that negatively impact on all subject areas in the primary-school system.

Dr Buddo, you have ably and scholarly articulated that grade four can be considered to be a crucial year for primary-school students, as this is the time they are introduced to discreet subjects in the curriculum. As a result, you do not believe it is a wise decision to implement a national test within a year of being exposed to mathematics as a discreet subject. While I understand your concerns, I do not believe that discontinuing the mathematics test is an appropriate solution to this problem.

why are they failing?

Based on what was presented in your article, you believe that there is a correlation between the poor results obtained by students in the grade-four numeracy test and the ineffective and inefficient methods used to teach mathematics. I will not buy into this argument. If students are failing mathematics, we need to scientifically explore why it is and make certain the 'cure' is not worse than the 'disease'. If we abort the grade-four numeracy test on the basis that we are allowing grade-four students to learn mathematics in a non-threatening and stress-free environment, we may be in danger of sending the message that teachers can spend less time teaching the subject and more time focusing on the teaching of literacy, since it will be the only subject to be assessed externally at this level. I do not subscribe to mathematics being taught in what you refer to as the three Es of teaching (Explain procedures, give examples and assign similar exercises).

However, in the capacity of parent, I would prefer my child to learn mathematics by rote rather than less time be spent teaching the subject. I have known of instances where a number of teachers have made the tough decision to spend little time on core subjects such as science and social studies in an effort to ensure that students are adequately prepared for the grade-four literacy and numeracy tests.

system falling short

The table presented clearly supported the point put forward that the Jamaican education system is not preparing mathematically competent students, and to blame the implementation of the grade-four test for teachers' shortcomings in teaching the subject, this explanation does not fit the evidence.

If GAIN has contributed to teachers utilising ineffective and inefficient methods to teach mathematics, the students would have been doing well in mathematics prior to the implementation of GAIN. Thus, such empirical evidence as presented and is blamed for curtailing teachers' effort to engage students in interactive mathematics leads to doubt about the powerful impact of GAIN.

Dr Buddo, it would have proven useful if you gave further information as it relates to the sample size of the study conducted and also the method used to choose this sample size.

An alternative explanation for the poor performance in mathematics could be that teachers' colleges have failed to adequately prepare teachers to teach mathematics in such a way that will cater to the learner in the 21st century. As a result, training institutions need to revisit the curriculum proposed in this area. For the existing practising teachers, I would recommend that the Ministry of Education continue to host excellent mathematics workshops as the ones implemented under the auspices of United States Agency for International Development.

Shaky commitment

In essence, I believe it is quite unfortunate that our students have become victims of some educators' shaky commitment to delivering quality education for all students. But the sad reality is that it is through these strict measures that require accountability that we can be assured that quality education is guaranteed.

Since the existence of the grade-four literacy and numeracy tests, a number of stakeholders, including teachers, students and parents, have realised the seriousness of students attaining mastery in literacy and numeracy and have got out of their comfort zones to ensure that this is made possible as early as at the grade-four level. Therefore, discontinuing the grade-four numeracy test would be a big step in the wrong direction.

Instead of focusing our energies on reasons for aborting such exam, we need to redirect our energies and think of innovative ways to improve the delivering of quality mathematics education to our students despite the odds.

Elaine Bryan-Walton, Masters of Science in Curriculum and Instructions, Ministry of Education. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and elainedbryan@live.com.