Mastery Math

I’m currently in an insomnia-induced state of mental wandering so it would seem unwise to post at this time, but what the heck.

I have been thinking about labels like traditional math, constructivist math, discovery math and fuzzy math. I’ve read discussions about how anti-fuzzy advocates are accused of wanting to go back to “parrot math”. I’ve never totally loved using the term “traditional” to describe what many of us believe to be the best way to teach math. And I can’t remember hearing of a better name.

And I just read this from a March 7 NCTM live chat:

Question fromSalem, Oregon: I am unclear as to how focal points are related to expectations of mastery (understanding) at a grade level. Is mastery (understanding) the goal at the grade level of the focal point?
Skip Fennell:A focal point is a topic or area of emphasis. Teachers will spend time on developing particular curricular focal points at a given grade level. That would then, for many topics, be extended the next year or so, but wouldn’t just be a grade level focus at that or those grades. As teachers know, the variable here is time. Some students need more or less time on a particular topic. Our concern is deep understanding. To get there will just require more time for some students than others.

After considering all this, I came up with a name that I’m going to start using and see if it works to help some people better understand these math wars.

Mastery Math!

Mastery math vs. focal points math.
Mastery math vs. exposure math, fuzzy math, constructivist math, discovery math, group math, spiraling math.

Mastery math, I like the sound of it. I think parents may like the sound of it. (On the other hand, maybe in the morning I’ll think differently. But, as I said, what the heck.)

And now I’ll try to get some sleep.