Myers-Briggs and Why MVP Doesn't Work at Scale

I am no professional educator like the elite experts who created and/or selected this Mathematics Vision Project (MVP) curriculum for my school district - Wake County Public School System - but I have been through 6 years of undergrad and grad school, and countless hours of corporate training in my 30+ year career.  I even taught a few classes myself at the college and professional level.  So I'm no stranger to the education process, and like most parents, I've got some common sense, too.

Cliff Notes Version

Setting aside the debates about "integrated math vs. sequential math curricula" and "procedural fluency vs. conceptual learning," I think the crux of the problem with MVP in WCPSS can be explained with these 3 observations about education mechanics:

1. Facilitation as a teaching style is very difficult to do well, especially for math personality types
2. Facilitated discovery as a learning style does not match all students' personality types
3. Facilitation as a primary teaching style is not a good fit for teaching math

The Gory Details

Introduction to Facilitation

This may be oversimplifying it, but I think teachers are called to their field because 1) they care for children and 2) they have a knack for explaining things.  With MVP, the approach to pedagogy (the study of how knowledge and skills are exchanged in an educational context) has shifted from direct TEACHING to more FACILITATION.  With facilitation, EXPLAINING THINGS is removed from the equation.  The job of the facilitator is not to explain things, but to coerce and manipulate students into EXPLAINING THINGS or figuring things out for themselves.  This is especially challenging in MATH, where such a large component of MATH education involves explaining and understanding concepts never before encountered.

Facilitation not a Good Fit for All Teachers

I've been a student of excellent facilitation and I've tried to do it myself.  It is hard.  It requires psychology and a keen sense of observation of human interactions.  It is not a natural method for most people, and probably more difficult for those of us who are among the Sensing-Thinking-Judging personality types of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test - you know, like many scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.  On the other hand, facilitation as a profession may be better suited for people who are on the Intuitive-Feeling-Perceiving quadrants of Myers-Briggs.  These are just generalities, but corporations across America have used MBTI for years to help over 50 million employees do their jobs better.

Note: The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator is an introspective self-report questionnaire with the purpose of indicating differing psychological preferences in how people perceive the world around them and make decisions.  I expect that many parents in the Triangle area are familiar with MBTI through professional training in their jobs.    

Facilitation is not a skill set that can be taught in a 4 day (or 4 month) class to math teachers who, in general, have personalities which are not well-suited to lead teenagers in a pure facilitation experience 5 days a week.   I concede there may be a few MVP teachers around Wake County and other parts of the US who can do it satisfactorily 5 days a week, but in general, pure facilitation of MATH is NOT a transformation that is scalable to all math teachers.

Additionally, the learning styles of students which work best in that type model are unique to some students. How many students will continue to ask questions when the response from the teacher is another question, followed by another question, followed by another question? Only some. Others will pipe down and stop asking questions. My son did. So I will never say that MVP doesn't work for ANY students and ANY teachers. I think there are some combinations that might work. I'm saying that AT SCALE, and for ALL, if done AS INTENDED and AS DESIGNED - IT CANNOT WORK. And that is why we have intense pockets of complaints and random pockets of contentment around the county.

Facilitation & Discovery Learning not a Good Fit for All Students

Likewise, facilitation is not a one-size-fits-all method that works for all students.  HOW we learn is a function of the personality type of the student.  Forcing teachers and students into a teaching/learning model based largely on teacher facilitation and student discovery goes against the personality preferences of many teachers AND many students. This is neither EQUITY nor a recognition of the DIVERSITY of teaching/learning preferences.

For most teachers who at heart just want to use his or her tools (which may or may not include facilitation) to educate their students, it is a square peg in a round hole.  Forcing teachers into this model who are not so predisposed to it will inevitably lead to career dissatisfaction and attrition.  Teacher training is not the problem.  And student learning is not the problem.

Facilitating Math is an Oxymoron

Next, let's consider if facilitating the subject of mathematics even makes sense.  According to the Journal of Extension, "Although teaching and facilitating are not mutually exclusive processes, each method has a set of characteristics that distinguishes it from the other."   Look at this chart comparing teaching and facilitating, and think through each item with MATH in mind.  I've highlighted some of the key differences particularly relevant to math.  I'm not down on facilitation as a practice.  It can be an excellent way to engage a group to solve a problem that has issues and perspectives and politics and points of view and where the answer can be "it depends".  Is that the best model for teaching and learning MATH, where the answer is either right or wrong?  NO!  Indeed, there may be more than one way to solve every math problem.  Do we want to sacrifice learning at least one way that works at the expense of having a facilitated discussion about all the possible alternatives the student group can come up with?  Definitely NOT!  Can students learn significant mathematical concepts and skills from facilitation?  UNLIKELY!  Can students discover processes and concepts for which they do not have the prerequisite skills, like Pascal and Newton and Euclid did?  DOUBTFUL!  It's not to say that these students will never reach such platitudes, but we're in high school math.  We need the math teacher - not the students - to teach math.

MVP apologists tout these methods as THE solution to all that ails students in their future higher education and workforce selves.   Yet, in college, it is highly unlikely you would encounter such teaching methods until senior or graduate level courses, if ever.  And certainly it is unlikely that would be in a class, the purpose of which is to establish basic foundations of quantitative subjects like MATH 1, 2, and 3!  Where you see pure facilitated instruction is in the social sciences or professional continuing education training.  Facilitation requires students who are mature enough to be facilitated and a subject suitable for debate, alternatives, discussion, opinion, flexibility, grey areas, and emotion.  Sensing-Thinking-Judging personality types + facilitating + teen agers + high school math = an equation that does not add up to anything but frustration for both teacher and student.

Too Many Square Pegs and Round Holes to Scale

All of the above doesn't mean that I am against a math teacher using facilitation skills to engage a class during a lesson.  What I am against is a prescriptive approach where teachers who are ill-equipped to be facilitators are mandated to teach a subject which is ill-fitted for facilitation to students whose personalities may or may not be receptive to such a style.  Otherwise, what we have is a square peg IN a round hole teaching about a square peg WITH a round hole to a square peg IN a round hole.  That is why MVP cannot scale as is, and therefore, since WCPSS has already scaled it, that is why it is failing.

Author: Blain Dillard