When I think about ten years into the future I picture one of those post apocalyptic scenes from the beginning of the Terminator movies. There may not be cybernetic soldiers crushing human skulls, but there will probably new enemies to math understanding that will need to be fought. Maybe these will be vapid math expectations in online schools, or maybe it’s a need to stop our need for calculus as a gate keeper to getting students accepted into middle school or maybe there could be some misguided future policy that poses disastrous consequences. Either way, the need for there to be an answer to the future’s problems will define the look of the future’s NCTM.

In those Terminator movies, the people are always fighting, and they are led by people no one knows. Same will probably apply here. My guess is that by 10 years from now, the idea of #MTBoSers being in leadership positions will be either a given, maybe even a nuisance. I think there will need to be a huge leadership turnover, maybe a couple, just as I imagine there has been in years past. When those future people fight those future robots, they usually have some awesome unimaginable future weaponry. I imagine math teachers in the future who seek to develop professionally will have a bevy of new weaponry at their disposal as well. I imagine the NCTM will need to harness whatever technology is at hand in order to carry out their mission and it will probably involve things much different than the avenues you’ve listed. At the same time, things like publishing and conferences will exist in some form since people need to exchange ideas. The will probably need to be done in a new way, just like those future people had guns that shot lasers. I’m not saying there is going to be doing huge singular doomsday event in math ed, but the pace of change in the field implies that things will need to get a lot more futuristic, if they aren’t already.

Like Dan, I have many more questions than answers! The message about what “good math instruction” is has not changed much in the past 20 years. Why, then, are we not further along in providing equal access to great mathematics classrooms for every student in the United States? Obviously, there are obstacles that are holding us back in reaching the mathematics classrooms that many twitter mathemagicians describe (@gfletchy, @MathMinds, @TracyZager, @deborah_ball, @steve_leinwand, @MrsNewell22 ‏, @kassiaowedekind, and @joboaler to name a few).

I reflect on these obstacles regularly and offer some thoughts (or more questions) about how organizations might attack them in 10 years for every educator, not a small subset of educators who attend a conference.

Some obstacles that might currently be present and what organizations could do to impact the future …

Fly By – A conference or one time professional learning does not translate to implementation at the district, school, or classroom level (only about 5% of the time). I am not advocating to stop the conference! I recently attended NCSM and left with energy, knowledge, and connections which I feel I could only get face-to-face. Conferences offer something and that “something” feels different than what I get from the connections and learning on social media.

Impact in 10 – We must begin to think about continual support. Organizations can not simply offer one time conferences and believe that they are making a true difference for ALL students (many offer much more). I love that #ShadowCon17 is followed up by support via an online experience to provide support as educators begin to implement new learning. With this in mind, how might organizations begin to make continual support a part of the conference and beyond? Conference planning committees should be asking themselves about how they plan to support the learning after the conference. This does not have to be placing the board of the organization in the classroom, but might be an advocacy stance at the local, regional, or state level to push for math coaches/specialists in school buildings.

Resources pt. 1 – By resources I am speaking to time and money. I wonder if we are focusing our time and money to support teachers in acquiring the knowledge and then, more importantly, supporting them in implementation. Teaching mathematics in a discourse centered classroom (Dialogic Instruction) where students are able to be mathematicians (Student-Centered) is not easy. It is HARD work that takes a village! This hard work is worth the effort, but still hard. In order for this to happen, teachers need time to collaborate and this takes time and money.

Impact in 10 – Advocacy. This is already happening and I wonder how to enhance the effectiveness of it. We live in a society where mathematics falls in behind reading/writing. Maybe rightfully so, but I will say that we have some work to be done to close the gap in schools on the amount of focus (time and money) that currently exists between ELA and mathematics. Again, I do not have the answer but do believe that the gap must narrow. A resource that was shared in an #NCSM17 Ignite speech by @CindyCliche1 really highlighted the fact that we, as a society, might not want to be so unbalanced in our focus (here).

Resources pt. 2 – The curriculum resource is a challenge for many. Going to a conference/website and acquiring new techniques/strategies is fantastic but as we go back to the classroom, integrating these can be very challenging. When educators get back to their classroom, they are left to make this “new math classroom” take shape with their current resource. Many teachers have a resource that does not lend itself to creativity/flexibility and these challenges can be overwhelming. Along with this, district leaders have expectations for curriculum so that each and every student has the same equitable experience in mathematics. A coherent system is not one where each teacher find a new strategy/practice at a conference/internet and implements it into the classroom. How might we push equitable mathematics education for all?

Impact in 10 – Organizations must continue to push educators to stay on the cutting edge of the work. The challenge we face is how to support educators in implementing the new content with their current curricular resource while keeping the coherence for students as they progress vertically through the grades. This is a huge challenge and I am not yet sure what an answer might be.

Knowledge – I wonder what portion of preservice and active teachers are on the “cutting edge” of what a mathematics environment should look and sound like. (I know, if everyone is on the “cutting edge” it is no longer cutting edge.) It is my hunch that, for the whole, exposure has yet to happen and/or educators might not yet believe this type of mathematics classroom is the right thing to do. This is not at all a jab at our group, it is simply saying that we as a whole are not yet there with current research in pedagogy and content progressions.

Impact in 10 – We must continue to reach those who are currently a part of the “cutting edge” (regular professional learning seekers) and intentionally invite them to share with those who are not a part of the conversation. This is an advocacy issue and we must advocate for what is right. Our message must get beyond social media and in the hands of those who are not “connected”! I loved Dan’s quote from #ShadowCon17 “What happens at NCTM should NOT stay at NCTM”. With this in mind, how might organizations force the content to a wider range of educators? What about those who are not on social media, not attending the conference, not getting the eblast? What about those who are not thirsty for continual growth? We know that the current amount of teachers receiving and acting on the message is not enough. It is up to the organizations to have a mission to extend beyond the membership.

As I continue to reflect, my thoughts continue to evolve … :-)