I recently wrote an article for Edutopia about factoring polynomials using areas and why FOIL is absolute crap:

For one, I’m not a fan of FOIL (first-outside-inside-last) for a plethora of reasons. While I think it’s handy to have an acronym that reminds students of a procedure, it only works in a very special case. In this case, FOIL works only for multiplying a binomial by another binomial. Does FOIL lead students toward understanding multiplication of all types of polynomials, or understanding why the distributive property works even with variables? I’m not so sure.

Please do let me know what you think about it! And please do encourage me to write more about math. I could use it in the coming school year!


This week, I’m supposed to teach my students how to solve a system of equations by elimination. It’s the hardest of the four ways  for solving systems (graphing, substitution, guess-and-checking), and I’m not entirely sure everyone in the class gets the first three. The main point of the unit is to determine exactly where two or more linear relationships meet, if they ever do. The situation could be realistic (two cars running a race, two trains on a schedule, cell phone pricing plans) or already abstracted (simultaneous equations), but I’m hoping they can find this meeting point because it’s really interesting. Is it relevant to their daily lives? Perhaps. Do I care? Not necessarily.

Really, I don’t always want the things that people learn to be within the realm of possibility, because I’m trying to prepare them for the improbable as well.

One missing piece of the Common Core State Standards debate is that, while I’m glad to teach students higher order math that puts them on the pathway to do well in high school algebra (and trickles into geometry, trig, and hopefully calculus / statistics), I can’t, and sometimes don’t want to, always do what the standards are asking me to do.

After nine years, I’m still trying to find ways to push my teaching – and their learning – further, and I believe I’ve earned the right to say what works and what doesn’t with any group of students. I often find it’s a waste to try and create a week’s worth of lesson plans when things are bound to change from day to day. I know what they have to learn and I have a given window of time I’d like to finish the learning by, but I’m also trying to maximize student learning if possible, meaning that I’ll have to come up with six ways of explaining something and hoping the students catch at least two of those.

That’s the thing with math generally. People are taught that we ought to teach math only one way, and, if not taught this way, they’ll never get it. I’m happy just knowing that, out of the hundreds of ways of doing a problem, they at least caught on to one. Because I really don’t have all the answers. I have mine. The next person might have a better way. I have no ego or qualms mentioning this all the time.

At some point, however, I’d like to get them confident enough to not have to depend on whether I know it or not, but that I gave them some tools for them to do it themselves. Because maybe the math we’re doing isn’t necessarily relevant, but it could be useful for the things we haven’t yet used, or necessary for the things we haven’t yet needed.



A few notes:

  • Hannah Nguyen bursts onto the scene with a comment at Michelle Rhee’s Teacher Town Hall last week. Check this out! [InspirEDucation]
  • Richard Rothstein just earned himself a new fan with his dissection of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s assertion that integration should be “voluntary.” [Economic Policy Institute]
  • Contrary to popular belief, the general public values math the most out of the general subjects taught. More on this soon, but please read this. [Gallup]
  • The New Republic makes the case for the wild child. No, really. [The New Republic]
  • Salome Thomas-El chimes in about the school year with a passionate post about passionate leadership. [ASCD Inservice]



Back to school time for us NYC folk (and a few others, surely). Let’s get this party started!


Grant Wiggins and How I View Math Curriculum

August 22, 2013 Mr. Vilson
Grant Wiggins, What issss UBD?

This week, a few of us got into a discussion, and involved Grant Wiggins. He calls himself a troublemaker, but I don’t remember seeing him at the last few meetings, and I’m the treasurer. In any case, for his 100th blog, he wrote this: Algebra is a dumb course. It survives only by unthinking habit. […]

Read more →

Math As A Merit Badge (And Other Comments)

August 20, 2013 Mr. Vilson
Don't Drink and Derive

The responses to my last post about math (who said I’m not a math blogger again?) ranged from the plauditory to the super-critical. Here’s a selection of some of my favorite comments to my last piece. First, Michael Doyle sets the record straight: Algebra II has become a badge, one of many, that pretends to separate middle […]

Read more →

No One Puts Algebra 2 In A Corner (Math For All Kids)

August 19, 2013 Mr. Vilson
No One Puts Baby In The Corner

First, let me say that this Nicholson Baker article already starts off wrong by not discussing al-Khwarizmi’s contributions to algebra, mainly NAMING it. Secondly, this conversation about math reminds me of the conversation we had about Andrew Hacker’s article last year. Here’s another guy who ostensibly doesn’t have a focus in any math-related subjects trying […]

Read more →

Short Notes: A Cautionary Tale for Edubloggers

June 9, 2013 Short Notes
Arundhati Roy

A few notes: The New York Daily News wants you to nominate teachers for their Hometown Heroes award. Start your engines, ladies and gentlemen. [NY Daily News] If you’re sick of the “disruption” talk surrounding technology, specifically education, then read this paper by Audrey Watters. Another hit. [Hack Education] Peter DeWitt writes an interview, and […]

Read more →