From Funnels to Webs:

Becoming a Spider in a School

MATC Synthesis Paper

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master of Arts Degree in Curriculum and Teaching
Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University

Christopher Klerkx
PID A42099936
August 7, 2015

Universal education through schooling is not feasible. ... The current search for new educational
funnels must be reversed into the search for their institutional inverse: educational webs which
heighten the opportunity for each one to transform each moment of his living into one of
learning, sharing, and caring.
Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society (1971, ixx)
Liquids are difficult to control. If they are not stored carefully we lose them, and transfer
between containers can be messy. Pouring a liquid into a funnel we see splashing turn to steady
stream as all the liquid flows through a small opening into its new receptacle. I entered the
MATC program and teacher preparation in general with my attention attuned by radical authors
such as Illich to the evils of our educational system. I saw schooling as a funnel for young
people: students are funneled into schools and funneled into classrooms where teachers funnel
their attention and behavior. They are programmed into obedience and stratified by their ability
and willingness to perform prespecified tasks. The requirement to produce at the pace
determined by a strict schedule kills creativity and curiosity. Most schools operate according to a
factory model of learning that reproduces the technocratic and corporate ideologies that
characterize dominant societies (McLaren 1994, as quoted in Artifact #1, p. 9). My student
teaching internship exposed me to new dimensions of the failure of our educational system.
Teaching at schools in Detroit I have learned that our schools stand segregated today, separate
and unequal. Environmental stressors such as overcrowding and under-resourced facilities
together with the cultural problem of imposing a middle-class Eurocentric curriculum amplify
the universal injustices of schooling just described.
Despite my critique of schooling, I also entered the program with a vision of excellent
mathematics learning and a passion for the beauty of mathematics. Traditional mathematics
classrooms with their emphasis on procedure and result suffocate the excitement of mathematics
exemplified in pattern seeking and argumentative reasoning. To do mathematics is to face the

unknown, to grapple with daunting abstractions until the elusive joy of understanding is
obtained. Doing mathematics means spinning a web of connections between concepts. The
MATC program has taught me how to make the best of a bad situation by showing me ways to
try to implement my vision of excellent mathematics learning for those students who find
themselves within the walls of our schools. I have learned ways to turn funnels into webs. In this
paper I first explain my vision of excellent mathematics learning by contrasting it with the
standard model. Then I describe some ways to realize this vision in our present schools.
Executing Procedures vs. Understanding Concepts
One of the key features of traditional mathematics education is its emphasis on precise
performance of procedures to obtain correct results. As evidence of critical inquiry (Goal 1) used
to address problems of practice (Standard 3), I documented this emphasis in two ways during my
first summer of MATC work. So involved are mathematical concepts themselves in these
inquiries that they also count as evidence of understanding subject matter and how to teach it
(Standard 2). The first was a curriculum analysis of a textbook titled Geometry for Enjoyment
and Challenge (Artifact #1). Even with its title, the problems in this textbook are almost entirely
procedural, involving applying a definition or replicating a procedure demonstrated earlier in
the book (Artifact #1, p. 2). Examples that first appear as exceptions turn out to present
unnatural situations with the relevant mathematical structure explicitly described instead of
describing a natural situation and inviting the reader to apply the appropriate mathematical
machinery (p. 3). These problems are not unique to this particular textbook, as we can see by
observing a hidden curriculum that emerges from the textbooks structure (p. 8). Each section
begins with a list of objectives that gives students the impression that every lesson just adds to
the list of procedures to be programmed.

The procedural emphasis in traditional mathematics education is further exhibited by the

way students talk about mathematics, as I observed during a clinical interview at Lansing Everett
High School (Artifact #2). Students view mathematics problems as games of symbolic
manipulation. In describing how to solve an equation such as | x | = 6, a student said you just
take the x out the box while another read | 2x 3 | as a line, 2x + 3, another line (Artifact
#2, p. 2). At no time did the concept of absolute value represented by these lines enter the
discussion. In another instance, I asked a student how he decided to use an open circle when
graphing a linear inequality in one variable. The student said it faces this way so its open and
then this one is closed and another student corrected him: its closed if theres a line on the
bottom (Artifact #2, p. 4). The students made a connection between the inequality sign having a
line (< vs. ) and the circle being filled in on the graph, but this connection does not
penetrate beyond the surface symbolism. The students did not mention that the symbol
means less than or equal to and that therefore the boundary point is filled in to show that it is
included as a solution. The procedural emphasis in traditional mathematics classrooms breeds
such superficial understanding.
This focus on applying rules to generate the right answer eliminates appreciation for the
elegance of mathematics. Even when we are involved in ugly computations, there is beauty in
the connections between the underlying ideas (Artifact #4, p. 2). The problem is that when we
are busy simply following rules the teacher told us, we cannot see these connections. Funneling
by teaching procedures must be replaced by web-spinning by teaching relationships. In my
vignette depicting good mathematics teaching (Artifact #3), students compare and contrast two
student-provided methods for solving a problem about arithmetic sequences. In doing so, the
students notice and then develop a connection between arithmetic sequences and linear

functions. Unlike in traditional mathematics education, students are able to observe general
patterns rather than focus on the details of a particular algorithm, and a genuine exchange
between teacher and students [leads] to novel insights (Artifact #4, p. 2). A mathematics teacher
should constantly seek these opportunities to turn lazy recipe following into real understanding.
For example, consider the procedure for graphing linear inequalities in two variables,
which the well-known mathematics educator Dan Meyer quotes from a textbook in a recent blog
post:
1. Graph the boundary. Use a solid line when the inequality contains or . Use a dashed
line when the inequality contains < or >.
2. Use a test point to determine which half-plane should be shaded.
3. Shade the half-plane that contains the solution.
The first step connects the inequality signs with their graphical representation, a topic discussed
above in its one-dimensional analogue. Regarding the third step, Meyer writes that [t]he
shading of the half-plane emerges from nowhere. ... This shading representation is new, and its
motivation is opaque.1 The lesson plan serving as Artifact #7 shows how I tried to motivate the
shading for students during my internship year. First I gave each group a coordinate pair and
asked them to check whether it is a solution to a given linear inequality (Figure 1 below). After
each group shared their results students noticed that all the solutions fall in one region and the
non-solutions in another (Figure 2). Then I asked students to carry out step one from above and
graph the equation corresponding to the inequality. Students saw that all the solutions fall on one
side of the line (Figure 3), which motivated shading the half-plane containing the solutions. One
of my students exclaimed, Oh! Thats why we shade one side! She experienced the joy of

http://blog.mrmeyer.com/2015/if-graphing-linear-inequalities-are-aspirin-then-how-do-you-create-the-headache

understanding a procedure that before she had simply memorized. Previously she had been
funneled, now she saw the web.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Changing Perceptions of Mathematics and Mathematical Ability

So far I have described good mathematics learning as emphasizing connections between
concepts where traditional mathematics learning emphasizes rote memorization of procedures.
But how can this vision of good mathematics learning be realized within the oppressive context
of our present school system? The problem is particularly acute for high school teachers, whose
students enter their classroom with an already-solidified perception of mathematics and their
own mathematical ability. A recurring theme throughout my mathematics education courses has
been the significant effect that students preconceptions have on their mathematical learning.
Students with a fixed mindset believe that mathematical aptitude is innate: one is either a math
person or not. Teachers should strive to build a growth mindset among students so that they see
mathematics as a subject where aptitude can be developed and where students with diverse skill
sets can contribute to the formulation and solution of problems. Unfortunately, years of drill and
right/wrong assessment firmly implant a fixed mindset.
While I think my commitment to students and their diversity (Standard 1) is displayed
prominently throughout all my work in education, the MATC program introduced me to simple
tasks that offer opportunity to highlight diverse student thinking. They can be used on the first

day of class to begin fostering a growth mindset in students. As an example of teacher leadership
(Goal 3, Standard 6), I ran two of these activities during a workshop for a group of art education
students to boost their math confidence while preparing for the Professional Readiness Exam
(Artifact #6). One task was simply to compute the product 18 5 mentally. Possible solution
methods include
(10 5) + (8 5) = 50 + 40 = 90 (see 18 as 10 + 8 and distribute the 5)
(20 5) (2 5) = 100 10 = 90 (see 18 as 20 2 and distribute the 5)
(9 2) 5 = 9 (2 5) = 9 10 = 90 (see 18 as 9 2 and then regroup)
Exploring this range of possible solution methods shows that we do not just value the correct
answer. Even for a simple arithmetic problem we value students thinking and their ability to
explain their thinking. I have also learned to look for opportunities to turn any task, no matter
how simple, into an opportunity for diverse thinking. Return to the lesson plan (Artifact #7)
where an objective was for students to classify scatterplots as exhibiting positive correlation,
negative correlation, or no correlation. I made the following graphs for students to classify:

The first row poses no problem, but the second row invites debate. Students have the opportunity
to defend their point of view and assess the reasoning of their peers.
Letting Silenced Voices Speak
Having just mentioned students explaining their thinking, we are led to the topic of how
speaking time is allotted in mathematics classrooms. In the standard model the teacher speaks for
a period of time known as lecture, beginning with an exposition of the relevant concepts and
concluding with a demonstration of how to work some example problems. Paulo Freire explains
that the teacher-student relationship ... reveals its fundamentally narrative character that turns
[students] into containers, into receptacles to be filled by the teacher.2 Thus the funnel idea
appears again: student attention is funneled to the teachers words while the teacher ostensibly
funnels ideas into the students minds. Although students may be allowed to talk while they work
on their assignments, this speech is not elevated in status so that everyone is expected to pay
attention to it. In How Children Learn, John Holt asks a rhetorical question: Who needs the
most practice talking in school? Who gets the most? Exactly. The children need it, the teacher
gets it (as quoted in Artifact #4, p. 1). In the traditional model the teacher dominates classroom
discourse, but [f]or students to be able to truly understand mathematics, they must be able to
speak about it and explain it (Artifact #4, p. 1). The opposite of this funnel in classroom
discourse is a web where students discuss mathematics with each other in small groups. They
pose questions, state conjectures, offer reasons, critique arguments, and note patterns, to name
just a few discursive modes. During class discussion that follows the group work, select students
present their ideas and receive validation for the positive qualities in their work even when it is
incomplete or incorrect.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1986) p. 57-58 New York: Continuum.

My effort to facilitate better class discussions gives evidence of reflective inquiry leading
to refinement of ones practice (Standard 4). Early in my student teaching I thought I was giving
students enough opportunity to speak by using a Socratic style of lecturing and asking them lots
of questions. But my field instructor still criticized me for making myself the hub through
which all communication must pass (Artifact #5, p. 1). I began seeking new communication
structures until finding a three-stage system. First, students work independently and silently on a
task to activate their background knowledge and generate ideas. Second, students discuss the
task in a small group. Third, select students explain a solution or solution attempt to the class.
My field instructor pointed out many improvements to be made during the third stage. Students
usually like to address the teacher, so I had to tell them to direct their explanation to their
colleagues. And students would usually ask questions to me about a students explanation, so I
had to tell them to ask the questions to the student presenter instead. Eventually we were able to
arrive at the point where students could carry on a mathematical discussion with me just
facilitating to make sure students ideas and questions receive appropriate attention. An
independent evaluator (Artifact #8) made these observations about my classroom in May 2015:
The teacher invites students to explain the content to the class or to classmates.
Students invite comments from their classmates during discussion.
Students initiate higher-order questions.
Students extend the discussion, enriching it.
I count these observations as confirmation that discussion in my classroom has become more
student-driven.
From Controlling Bodies to Building Community
All these ideas about boosting students confidence with a growth mindset and providing
opportunities to learn mathematics by speaking about it sound great, but what if the students do
not cooperate? Then how would these progressive methods meet the objections raised about our

whole schooling system in the opening paragraphs? Thus arises the question of classroom
management, that nightmare of novice teachers. Indeed, I wrote in my Professional Growth Plan
that during my student teaching internship I faced difficulties with excessive student talking that
would disrupt full-group discussion/instruction (Artifact #5, p. 1). Traditional classroom
management is a funnel that exploits the power differential between adults and students in
schools by threatening students with a system of punishments if they do not conform to our
expectations. Even systems that try to justify these punishments as logical consequences or
somehow dress up the delivery of the punishments do not escape this basic pattern, as Alfie
Kohn argues in his book Beyond Discipline: From Compliance to Community. My first attempts
to solve the problem of excessive student talking followed this traditional scheme. I would
eliminate students participation points or assign them detentions. On my worst days I can still
fall back on these habits. This route sets teachers and students against each other in a power
struggle where they should be cooperating toward the common goal of mathematics learning.
Again the funnel must be replaced by a web. My preferred approach to classroom
management builds cooperation between teachers and students by creating a sense of community
in the classroom. If students believe that you care about them and want them to succeed in
mathematics, and if you show students that you value their ideas and opinions, then they are
likely to go along with your lesson. My cultivation of a classroom learning community provides
my best evidence of accomplished teaching (Goal 2). I made it through my first year as a teacher
of record without writing any referrals or calling any parents about behavior problems, yet I also
built a reputation for having good classroom management. Consider these observations made by
the same independent evaluator quoted above (Artifact #8):
Feedback to students is specific and timely, and is provided from many sources, including
other students.

Students take initiative in improving the quality of their work.

Students suggest modifications or additions to the materials being used.
Students indicate that they are not satisfied unless they have complete understanding.
Students take initiative to modify a learning task to make it more meaningful or relevant
to their needs.
Students have extensive choice in how they complete tasks.
These observations show that my students play an active role in their own learning. At times my
classroom is chaotic and a poor environment for learning, but I do not find it reason to get
tough and begin handing out harsh punishments. I find it reason to work harder with my
students to build a better community.
At the beginning of this essay I quoted the assertion by Illich that [u]niversal education
through schooling is not feasible. I still think he might be right, and in the future I hope to seek
alternatives to schools as our primary means of learning. For now, the MATC program has
equipped me with the best tools available for facilitating excellent mathematical learning in our
current educational context. Though our students may be funneled into schools and funneled into
classrooms, I now understand my role. I am to become a spider in a school, spinning webs: the
web of mathematical concepts, the web of learning community, and webs that spread beyond the
confines of the classroom.