Schoolwide News

Did math class ever feel like you were on a conveyor belt?  For me, I felt like I was sitting in a class, taking notes, trying to copy exactly what the teacher did so that my head would be filled with the important math information.  Lessons were stacked on top of each other, and when we missed a day or didn't understand a concept, we needed to “catch up” so we didn't “fall behind".  Adults worried that we wouldn't keep up with the other students on the class conveyor belt, leading us to end the year in different places.

Many of us still think in these terms, as if kids are empty vessels that we systematically fill with knowledge.  This model is why we worry about things like "learning loss", "gaps”, and kids “not keeping up”.  It's why schools get requests from parents who want to move their kids ahead faster, presumably to exit the conveyor belt first.  

We know that learning doesn't happen passively, it happens through cognitive constructivism.  This is where students build their understanding through working with and reflecting on the material.  Students are not passive recipients of information – the teacher cannot pour the required knowledge into their heads.  Instead, they must actively engage, connecting new ideas to their prior knowledge and building understanding they can truly use.

If we really learned passively – through listening to lectures – then every kid would score perfectly on assessments because the information given out by the teacher was received by the student. But this isn't how learning works.  

Since we know students aren't passive consumers of information, we need a new way to think about learning — one that matches how kids actually build understanding.  I propose replacing the conveyor belt model with a different model to math education: the control-tower model. 

In the control tower model, students are like pilots charting their own journeys. They make decisions, encounter turbulence, adjust their course, and build understanding through active engagement. Teachers — and parents — act like air traffic controllers: offering guidance, resources, and encouragement, but trusting that each learner is constructing their own path.

In this model, students may move at different speeds or take different routes. They might revisit concepts several times from different angles. Struggle, revision, and experimentation aren’t signs of failure — they are essential parts of building something that lasts.

Using the control-tower model, students navigate their own course and build their own understanding.  The question changes from "Are they ahead or behind?" to "Are they developing the tools they need to keep building?"

Some students may appear "slow" by traditional standards but are laying deep foundations for powerful reasoning later on. Others may "fly ahead" in certain topics but need to loop back and strengthen their structures down the road. In this model, time is less important than quality of understanding, and ability to grow.

Thinking about math education in terms of this new model ties into the suggestions I've been sharing in the bulletin this year:

• Celebrate thinking, not just right answers. Ask, "How did you figure that out?"
• Normalize not getting things right the first time as part of learning. Share your own experiences of struggle and eventual success.
• Focus on strategies and reasoning over speed.
• Trust the process — just because a concept isn’t mastered immediately doesn’t mean it won’t be soon.

As teachers and parents, our role is not to push the "conveyor belt" forward. It’s to encourage the young navigator at the controls: curious, persistent, and capable.

Let's trust our young pilots at the controls to develop their own understanding.  After all, they will be doing this anyway, and they will have an easier time with it if we show them that we trust them to do it themselves!  By teaching them how to think, reason, and persevere, we aren't just helping them pass the next test — we're giving them tools they will use for life.