Wednesday, December 28, 2011
How the feds are tracking your kid
How the feds are tracking your kid
By EMMETT MCGROARTY & JANE ROBBINS
Last Updated: 11:01 PM, December 27, 2011
Posted: 11:01 PM, December 27, 2011
Would it bother you to know that the federal Centers for Disease Control had been shown your daughter'€™s health records to see how she responded to an STD/teen-pregnancy-prevention program? How about if the federal Department of Education and Department of Labor scrutinized your son's academic performance to see if he should be €œencouraged†to leave high school early to learn a trade? Would you think the government was intruding on your territory as a parent?
Under regulations the Obama Department of Education released this month, these scenarios could become reality. The department has taken a giant step toward creating a de facto national student database that will track students by their personal information from preschool through career. Although current federal law prohibits this, the department decided to ignore Congress and, in effect, rewrite the law. Student privacy and parental authority will suffer.
How did it happen? Buried within the enormous 2009 stimulus bill were provisions encouraging states to develop data systems for collecting copious information on public-school kids. To qualify for stimulus money, states had to agree to build such systems according to federally dictated standards. So all 50 states either now maintain or are capable of maintaining extensive databases on public-school students.
The administration wants this data to include much more than name, address and test scores. According to the National Data Collection Model, the government should collect information on health-care history, family income and family voting status. In its view, public schools offer a golden opportunity to mine reams of data from a captive audience.
The department’s eagerness to get control of all this information is almost palpable. But current federal law prohibits a nationwide student database and strictly limits disclosure of a student’s personal information. So the department has determined that it can overcome the legal obstacles by simply bypassing Congress and essentially rewriting the federal privacy statute.
Last April, the department proposed regulations that would allow it and other agencies to share a student’s personal information with practically any government agency or even private company, as long as the disclosure could be said to support an evaluation of an “education program,†broadly defined. That’s how the CDC might end up with your daughter’s health records or the Department of Labor with your son’s test scores.
And you'd have no right to object — in fact, you’d probably never even know about the disclosure.
Not surprisingly, these proposed regulations provoked a firestorm of criticism. But on Dec. 2, the Department of Education rejected almost all the criticisms and released the regulations. As of Jan. 3, 2012, interstate and intergovernmental access to your child’s personal information will be practically unlimited. The federal government will have a de facto nationwide database of supposedly confidential student information.
The department says this won’t happen. If the states choose to link their data systems, it says, that’s their business, but “the federal government would not play a role†in operating the resulting megadatabase.
This denial is, to say the least, disingenuous. The department would have access to the data systems of each of the 50 states and would be allowed to share that data with anyone it chooses, as long as it uses the right language to justify the disclosure.
And just as the department used the promise of federal money to coerce the states into developing these systems, it would almost certainly do the same to make them link their systems. The result would be a nationwide student database, whether or not it’s “operated†from an office in Washington.
The loosening of student-privacy protection would greatly increase the risks of unauthorized disclosure of personal data. Even the authorized disclosure would be limited only by the imaginations of federal bureaucrats.
Unless Congress steps in and reclaims its authority, student privacy and parental control over education will be relics of the past.
Emmett McGroarty is executive director of the Preserve Innocence Initiative of the American Principles Project. Jane Robbins is a senior fellow with the American Principles Project.
By EMMETT MCGROARTY & JANE ROBBINS
Last Updated: 11:01 PM, December 27, 2011
Posted: 11:01 PM, December 27, 2011
Would it bother you to know that the federal Centers for Disease Control had been shown your daughter'€™s health records to see how she responded to an STD/teen-pregnancy-prevention program? How about if the federal Department of Education and Department of Labor scrutinized your son's academic performance to see if he should be €œencouraged†to leave high school early to learn a trade? Would you think the government was intruding on your territory as a parent?
Under regulations the Obama Department of Education released this month, these scenarios could become reality. The department has taken a giant step toward creating a de facto national student database that will track students by their personal information from preschool through career. Although current federal law prohibits this, the department decided to ignore Congress and, in effect, rewrite the law. Student privacy and parental authority will suffer.
How did it happen? Buried within the enormous 2009 stimulus bill were provisions encouraging states to develop data systems for collecting copious information on public-school kids. To qualify for stimulus money, states had to agree to build such systems according to federally dictated standards. So all 50 states either now maintain or are capable of maintaining extensive databases on public-school students.
The administration wants this data to include much more than name, address and test scores. According to the National Data Collection Model, the government should collect information on health-care history, family income and family voting status. In its view, public schools offer a golden opportunity to mine reams of data from a captive audience.
The department’s eagerness to get control of all this information is almost palpable. But current federal law prohibits a nationwide student database and strictly limits disclosure of a student’s personal information. So the department has determined that it can overcome the legal obstacles by simply bypassing Congress and essentially rewriting the federal privacy statute.
Last April, the department proposed regulations that would allow it and other agencies to share a student’s personal information with practically any government agency or even private company, as long as the disclosure could be said to support an evaluation of an “education program,†broadly defined. That’s how the CDC might end up with your daughter’s health records or the Department of Labor with your son’s test scores.
And you'd have no right to object — in fact, you’d probably never even know about the disclosure.
Not surprisingly, these proposed regulations provoked a firestorm of criticism. But on Dec. 2, the Department of Education rejected almost all the criticisms and released the regulations. As of Jan. 3, 2012, interstate and intergovernmental access to your child’s personal information will be practically unlimited. The federal government will have a de facto nationwide database of supposedly confidential student information.
The department says this won’t happen. If the states choose to link their data systems, it says, that’s their business, but “the federal government would not play a role†in operating the resulting megadatabase.
This denial is, to say the least, disingenuous. The department would have access to the data systems of each of the 50 states and would be allowed to share that data with anyone it chooses, as long as it uses the right language to justify the disclosure.
And just as the department used the promise of federal money to coerce the states into developing these systems, it would almost certainly do the same to make them link their systems. The result would be a nationwide student database, whether or not it’s “operated†from an office in Washington.
The loosening of student-privacy protection would greatly increase the risks of unauthorized disclosure of personal data. Even the authorized disclosure would be limited only by the imaginations of federal bureaucrats.
Unless Congress steps in and reclaims its authority, student privacy and parental control over education will be relics of the past.
Emmett McGroarty is executive director of the Preserve Innocence Initiative of the American Principles Project. Jane Robbins is a senior fellow with the American Principles Project.
Friday, November 25, 2011
District defends math program - Parents continue to complain about textbook selection
The Blaine County School District has acknowledged that it violated its own policy in adopting a new mathematics textbook series this year, but also defended the selection Tuesday as the best choice to help students learn "21st-century" math skills.
District Director of Curriculum Patricia McLean spent more than an hour at Tuesday's school board meeting explaining and defending selection of "Investigations in Number, Data and Space" as the new textbook series for grades K-12.
"Investigations," as it is usually called, places emphasis on teaching children math concepts, which some parents argue is to the detriment of teaching basic mathematical procedures.
Parental complaints, publicly aired first at an Oct. 18 school board meeting, continued Tuesday during the public comment portion of the meeting.
"Like several other people here, I'm concerned about how math is being implemented without an approved district protocol," said Erik Ruggeri, a consulting engineering with Power Engineers in Hailey. He further explained that his success as an engineer was the result of learning basic math procedures or algorithms.
"I can say with certainty that I would not have been able to achieve what I did with this kind of education," Ruggeri said, referring to the new district math program. "I am adamant that the standard algorithms must be learned before there is a shift to conceptual."
Hailey resident Paul Hartzell, a mechanical engineer and former Major League Baseball player, said that in both sports and in math he learned that "repetition and following procedures" is an ingredient for success.
"I'm a process-oriented guy," Hartzell said. "In the process of feeling good about learning mathematics, we've lost our way. Mathematics is not meant to be fun, and sometimes it's a grind. I think you can make a better choice for your math curriculum."
McLean argued during her presentation that children are learning both math concepts and basic procedures in the classroom, with the new district program relying on "Investigations" to help with concepts and on teachers to explain procedures.
"I believe in the teachers in this district," she said. "[District] teachers have excellent knowledge, skills and experience teaching procedural math and will have no difficulty supplementing this as part of a balanced math program."
McLean said the textbook selection process was started last year. She said seven text series were initially evaluated and three of them, including "Investigations," were piloted in district elementary schools last spring.
Twelve district math teachers were on the text selection committee, and after thorough evaluation and piloting, the committee voted unanimously to select "Investigations."
McLean said not including parents on the selection committee was an oversight. She apologized and said "I take full responsibility for it."
District Superintendent Lonnie Barber acknowledged that parents should have been included but said their exclusion was "not intentional."
Nonetheless, Barber said, the process of selecting the new math texts was done carefully and thoroughly.
Trustee Kathryn Graves said she researched the subject prior to Tuesday's meeting and found that the Aspen, Colo., school district has been using "Investigations" for 10 years.
"They're very happy with it," she said. "They said it may take a little while for parents and teachers to get used to it."
District Director of Curriculum Patricia McLean spent more than an hour at Tuesday's school board meeting explaining and defending selection of "Investigations in Number, Data and Space" as the new textbook series for grades K-12.
"Investigations," as it is usually called, places emphasis on teaching children math concepts, which some parents argue is to the detriment of teaching basic mathematical procedures.
Parental complaints, publicly aired first at an Oct. 18 school board meeting, continued Tuesday during the public comment portion of the meeting.
"Like several other people here, I'm concerned about how math is being implemented without an approved district protocol," said Erik Ruggeri, a consulting engineering with Power Engineers in Hailey. He further explained that his success as an engineer was the result of learning basic math procedures or algorithms.
"I can say with certainty that I would not have been able to achieve what I did with this kind of education," Ruggeri said, referring to the new district math program. "I am adamant that the standard algorithms must be learned before there is a shift to conceptual."
Hailey resident Paul Hartzell, a mechanical engineer and former Major League Baseball player, said that in both sports and in math he learned that "repetition and following procedures" is an ingredient for success.
"I'm a process-oriented guy," Hartzell said. "In the process of feeling good about learning mathematics, we've lost our way. Mathematics is not meant to be fun, and sometimes it's a grind. I think you can make a better choice for your math curriculum."
McLean argued during her presentation that children are learning both math concepts and basic procedures in the classroom, with the new district program relying on "Investigations" to help with concepts and on teachers to explain procedures.
"I believe in the teachers in this district," she said. "[District] teachers have excellent knowledge, skills and experience teaching procedural math and will have no difficulty supplementing this as part of a balanced math program."
McLean said the textbook selection process was started last year. She said seven text series were initially evaluated and three of them, including "Investigations," were piloted in district elementary schools last spring.
Twelve district math teachers were on the text selection committee, and after thorough evaluation and piloting, the committee voted unanimously to select "Investigations."
McLean said not including parents on the selection committee was an oversight. She apologized and said "I take full responsibility for it."
District Superintendent Lonnie Barber acknowledged that parents should have been included but said their exclusion was "not intentional."
Nonetheless, Barber said, the process of selecting the new math texts was done carefully and thoroughly.
Trustee Kathryn Graves said she researched the subject prior to Tuesday's meeting and found that the Aspen, Colo., school district has been using "Investigations" for 10 years.
"They're very happy with it," she said. "They said it may take a little while for parents and teachers to get used to it."
Texas School Drops Standards-based Grading
ROUND ROCK — Following controversy due to lack of communication and inconsistency in implementation, Round Rock ISD Superintendent Jesús Chavez announced Oct. 27 that the standards-based grading system would be rolled back at two schools.
Click for larger image
The system was used at Ridgeview Middle School and Round Rock High School as a way to improve commended rates and prepare students for the new State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, or STAAR, which will reportedly be more challenging than the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, or TAKS.
Trustees and parents alike agreed that SBG could hurt students more than help them without more time spent researching its benefits.
“We are not ready for this. The teachers who aren’t ready for this are hurting our children,” trustee Terri Romere said at the RRISD board of trustees Oct. 20 regular meeting. “The research is good. The methods are good. The implementation is horrible.”
Romere said the board had not been informed about SBG until she asked that it be added to the Sept. 29 meeting agenda. Her greatest concern, she said, was the students who were challenged by schoolwork prior to SBG implementation.
Rollback
A called board meeting Oct. 27 followed Chavez’s announcement, and parents filled the RRHS lecture hall as they had at previous meetings.
“I think Dr. Chavez announcing that they’ll quit experimenting with SBG is great. They’ll go back to the great schools they were before all this,” parent Amber Schmitt said. “Everyone is cautiously optimistic, and we are happy to have this behind us.”
Schmitt, who founded rrisdconcernedparents.com and its complementary Facebook page—both of which allow parents to voice their opinions of SBG—said she thinks parents still need to work to ensure that the school board comes up with a district-wide policy “that is consistent and equitable.”
JoyLynn Occhiuzzi, executive director of communications at RRISD, said there is a chance SBG will be re-implemented in the future, but if is, it will be a district-wide decision.
Why standards-based grading?
RRHS and Ridgeview officials used SBG to increase the rigor of assignments and tests so that students would be more competitive when it comes to going to college and starting a career.
Ridgeview Principal Holly Galloway said an SBG pilot program launched for eighth-grade students last school year following research, a seminar and book study. This school year, Ridgeview sixth- and seventh-grade students were assessed under SBG.
RRHS Principal Natalie Nichols said that throughout SBG implementation at the school, the number of students taking benchmark tests have gone up, as have scores. She reported increased commended rates and increased number of students passing.
At the Oct. 27 meeting, trustees and parents expressed concern that with the rollback of SBG, the rigor with which students have been taught may be lost.
Next steps
Parents worried that inconsistencies in grading may have caused an error in their child’s grade were urged to talk to their teacher and principal immediately.
The SBG rollback will be concluded at both schools Nov. 7. A complete timeline of the process is posted at www.roundrockisd.org.
Trustees will have a workshop meeting Nov. 29 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss grading policy. The location is to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click for larger image
The system was used at Ridgeview Middle School and Round Rock High School as a way to improve commended rates and prepare students for the new State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, or STAAR, which will reportedly be more challenging than the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, or TAKS.
Trustees and parents alike agreed that SBG could hurt students more than help them without more time spent researching its benefits.
“We are not ready for this. The teachers who aren’t ready for this are hurting our children,” trustee Terri Romere said at the RRISD board of trustees Oct. 20 regular meeting. “The research is good. The methods are good. The implementation is horrible.”
Romere said the board had not been informed about SBG until she asked that it be added to the Sept. 29 meeting agenda. Her greatest concern, she said, was the students who were challenged by schoolwork prior to SBG implementation.
Rollback
A called board meeting Oct. 27 followed Chavez’s announcement, and parents filled the RRHS lecture hall as they had at previous meetings.
“I think Dr. Chavez announcing that they’ll quit experimenting with SBG is great. They’ll go back to the great schools they were before all this,” parent Amber Schmitt said. “Everyone is cautiously optimistic, and we are happy to have this behind us.”
Schmitt, who founded rrisdconcernedparents.com and its complementary Facebook page—both of which allow parents to voice their opinions of SBG—said she thinks parents still need to work to ensure that the school board comes up with a district-wide policy “that is consistent and equitable.”
JoyLynn Occhiuzzi, executive director of communications at RRISD, said there is a chance SBG will be re-implemented in the future, but if is, it will be a district-wide decision.
Why standards-based grading?
RRHS and Ridgeview officials used SBG to increase the rigor of assignments and tests so that students would be more competitive when it comes to going to college and starting a career.
Ridgeview Principal Holly Galloway said an SBG pilot program launched for eighth-grade students last school year following research, a seminar and book study. This school year, Ridgeview sixth- and seventh-grade students were assessed under SBG.
RRHS Principal Natalie Nichols said that throughout SBG implementation at the school, the number of students taking benchmark tests have gone up, as have scores. She reported increased commended rates and increased number of students passing.
At the Oct. 27 meeting, trustees and parents expressed concern that with the rollback of SBG, the rigor with which students have been taught may be lost.
Next steps
Parents worried that inconsistencies in grading may have caused an error in their child’s grade were urged to talk to their teacher and principal immediately.
The SBG rollback will be concluded at both schools Nov. 7. A complete timeline of the process is posted at www.roundrockisd.org.
Trustees will have a workshop meeting Nov. 29 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss grading policy. The location is to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penfield NY Math Success
I am very glad to say that, in the Penfield Central School District (Penfield, NY), about 5 years after generally leaving constructivist math and returning to a more traditional approach, we now have some of the best math scores in our county (Monroe County).
Attached in Appendix A is the October, 2011 newsletter from the Penfield, NY school district with some very impressive math results. For example: "...Penfield Student in grades 3,4,5, and 7 had the highest passing rates in Monroe County on the New York Math exam."
Appedix B is a review of how constructivist math came into Penfield in 1998/1999, and began leaving the district in Sept., 2006, in part with a parent group that I (Bill Munch) founded in 2005 (which is no longer in existence). At the depths of poor performance in Penfield, we had:
- Sept, 2005: 1/3 of 6th graders failed internal assessment of whole number addition, subtraction and multiplication (no division)
- March, 2006: 41% of Penfield's students failed the 7th and 8th grade math assessments
Penfield has come a long way to improve math education. I'm very glad to have been a part of that effort. It goes without saying that this change back to a more traditional approach would not have been accomplished without support of a very large number of parents and teachers in the Penfield Commnunity. I would also like to thank the help I received from Elizabeth Carson, NYCHold,l and a number of others involved with this fight nationally.....who made me and others in Penfield believe that this change would be possible.
BILL MUNCH
ex-leader of "Parents Concerned with Penfield's Math Programs"
Penfield, NY
APPENDIX A: "District Celebrates Success on Math Exams"
Penfield School District Newsletter
October, 2011
http://www.penfield.edu/files/66956/penfield%20october%202011%20final.pdf
Over the past six years, the Penfield Central School District has focused on improving and strengthening its math program. Teachers and administrators have worked together to map curriculum, examine test scores and questions, and use that data to improve instruction. It has been a collaborative, districtwide effort and the hard work is starting to pay off in a big way. The District is extremely pleased with its students' results on the spring 2011 exams.
Specifically, Penfield students in grades 3, 4, 5, and 7 had the highest passing rates in Monroe County on the New York State Math exam. Grades 6 and 8 results were also extremely strong, with 6th graders posting the second highest passing rate and 8th graders, the third highest passing rate.
At the high school level, the district also had outstanding performances on Regents exams. The District's 93% passing rate and 60% mastery rate (score of 85 or higher) on the algebra 2/trig exam were the highest in Monroe County. Penfield also had high passing rates of 94% on the algebra exam and 95% on the geometry exam.
"Penfield students in grades 3, 4, 5 and 7 had the highest passing rates in Monroe County on the New York State Math exam."
The number of Penfield High School students who were successful on college level AP exams is equally impressive. 100% of students taking the Calculus AB exam and the Statistics exam scored a passing grade of 3 or higher. In addition, 91% of those taking the AB exam and 65% of those taking the Statistics exam received the highest score of 5. Finally, 90% of students taking the AP Calculus BC exam received a passing grade of 3 or higher, with 66% receiving a score of 5.
"It's very exciting that other districts and even the state are coming to us and asking us what we are doing to help kids be so successful," said Gene Mancuso, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction.
While they are pleased with these results, District teachers and administrators are not looking at this as a task completed. With the implementation of the new Common Core Standards, there is still work left to do. Curriculum maps that incorporate the new standards have been developed for grades K-2, with full implementation across K-12 expected to occur by the 2013-14 school year.
"Our students continue to do the real work and our teachers recognize that if a student is not there yet, it means the student and the teacher must continue to work toward reaching that Penfield standard and beyond," Mr. Mancuso said.
APPENDIX B: History of Penfield Parent Group
1998/1999 - Penfield Schools begins piloting Constructivist Math program
2002/2003 – Most/all(?) math classes in all grades converted to Constructivist Math
Up until Jan, 2005 – A number of individual parents brought concerns to the district with basically no responses (other than the program is working, will work, and/or is in a trial phase). No changes occurred
Jan, 2005 – "Parents Concerned with Penfield's Math Program" was formed (founded by Bill Munch). Membership quickly rose to about 80 families, all of which expressed concerns. Petition started
3/19/05 - First official meeting of Penfield Parent group
4/26/05 - First petition to School Board (signed by 670 residents)..asking for traditional math. Petition denied.
May, 2005 – Created www.teachusmath.com to express Penfield parent concerns. Web site no longer exists, but it can be viewed using the "Wayback Machine" which records the entire internet; go to http://www.archive.org/web/web.php then enter www.teachusmath.com in the "Take Me Back" box)
Nov 11, 2005 – New York Times Article discussing concerns brought up by Penfield Parent Group: "Innovative Math, but can you count":http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/education/08education.html?pagewanted=all
This article drew national attention to constructivist issues, and Penfield's fight.
Sept, 2005 - 1/3 of 6th graders failed internal assessment of whole number addition, subtraction and multiplication (no division) - not shared until asked at math forum
Sept, 2006 – Constructivist math removed as only method for teaching math from Penfield High School. 9/29/06 Penfield Post: "National report backs math parents in Penfield": "…In June… Superintendent Susan Gray told members of the math parent group that Core Plus is now out of the high school, citing changing state standards and parent concerns."
Oct, 2006 7th/8th Graders from Penfield Found to have very poor basic math skills– NYS assessments for the 2005-06 school year. 41% of Penfield's students failed the 7th and 8th grade math assessments which were given in March of 2006, according to the Superintendent's Report dated October 24, 2006.
Fall, 2006 – Remediation of basic math skills begin. Despite requests for periodic math updates throughout the year, no more updates received.
Nov, 2006 - High school students assigned to AIS
April 2007 – Two voter propositions proposed for placement on May 15, 2007 school budget ballot - Proposition A demanded removal of the inquiry-based math programs and replacement with textbook-based math programs that use direct instruction. Proposition B required creation of a policy for future implementation of experimental programs in the district. Both requests were denied at the April 17, 2007 BOE meeting. April 18, 2007 letter from the BOE stated that both propositions were for items that are not within the power of the voters, and were therefore invalid.
May, 2007 – Formal appeal of the April 2007 BOE decision was made to the NY State Commissioner of Education, Commissioner Richard Mills
Oct, 2007 – Commissioner Mills denies appeal
Feb, 2008 – Parent group's website turned off
June/July, 2008 - Penfield Math Scores up significantly: June 23, 2008 D&C Article: "English, math test scores up area wide." Online table shows increase in % passing statewide tests for Penfield from 85.3% (2007) to 93.3% (2008)..an 8.04% increase (in one year)! July 3, 2008 – Penfield Post Article: ""Much-maligned math curriculum gets good results": "…the district has seen double-digit increases in students passing the state exam." Penfield Parents are convinced this increase was due to a return to teaching of basic math facts.
October, 2011: Cover story on Penfield newsletter: "…Penfield students in grades 3, 4, 5, and 7 had the highest passing rates in Monroe County on the New York State Math exam."
Attached in Appendix A is the October, 2011 newsletter from the Penfield, NY school district with some very impressive math results. For example: "...Penfield Student in grades 3,4,5, and 7 had the highest passing rates in Monroe County on the New York Math exam."
Appedix B is a review of how constructivist math came into Penfield in 1998/1999, and began leaving the district in Sept., 2006, in part with a parent group that I (Bill Munch) founded in 2005 (which is no longer in existence). At the depths of poor performance in Penfield, we had:
- Sept, 2005: 1/3 of 6th graders failed internal assessment of whole number addition, subtraction and multiplication (no division)
- March, 2006: 41% of Penfield's students failed the 7th and 8th grade math assessments
Penfield has come a long way to improve math education. I'm very glad to have been a part of that effort. It goes without saying that this change back to a more traditional approach would not have been accomplished without support of a very large number of parents and teachers in the Penfield Commnunity. I would also like to thank the help I received from Elizabeth Carson, NYCHold,l and a number of others involved with this fight nationally.....who made me and others in Penfield believe that this change would be possible.
BILL MUNCH
ex-leader of "Parents Concerned with Penfield's Math Programs"
Penfield, NY
APPENDIX A: "District Celebrates Success on Math Exams"
Penfield School District Newsletter
October, 2011
http://www.penfield.edu/files/66956/penfield%20october%202011%20final.pdf
Over the past six years, the Penfield Central School District has focused on improving and strengthening its math program. Teachers and administrators have worked together to map curriculum, examine test scores and questions, and use that data to improve instruction. It has been a collaborative, districtwide effort and the hard work is starting to pay off in a big way. The District is extremely pleased with its students' results on the spring 2011 exams.
Specifically, Penfield students in grades 3, 4, 5, and 7 had the highest passing rates in Monroe County on the New York State Math exam. Grades 6 and 8 results were also extremely strong, with 6th graders posting the second highest passing rate and 8th graders, the third highest passing rate.
At the high school level, the district also had outstanding performances on Regents exams. The District's 93% passing rate and 60% mastery rate (score of 85 or higher) on the algebra 2/trig exam were the highest in Monroe County. Penfield also had high passing rates of 94% on the algebra exam and 95% on the geometry exam.
"Penfield students in grades 3, 4, 5 and 7 had the highest passing rates in Monroe County on the New York State Math exam."
The number of Penfield High School students who were successful on college level AP exams is equally impressive. 100% of students taking the Calculus AB exam and the Statistics exam scored a passing grade of 3 or higher. In addition, 91% of those taking the AB exam and 65% of those taking the Statistics exam received the highest score of 5. Finally, 90% of students taking the AP Calculus BC exam received a passing grade of 3 or higher, with 66% receiving a score of 5.
"It's very exciting that other districts and even the state are coming to us and asking us what we are doing to help kids be so successful," said Gene Mancuso, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction.
While they are pleased with these results, District teachers and administrators are not looking at this as a task completed. With the implementation of the new Common Core Standards, there is still work left to do. Curriculum maps that incorporate the new standards have been developed for grades K-2, with full implementation across K-12 expected to occur by the 2013-14 school year.
"Our students continue to do the real work and our teachers recognize that if a student is not there yet, it means the student and the teacher must continue to work toward reaching that Penfield standard and beyond," Mr. Mancuso said.
APPENDIX B: History of Penfield Parent Group
1998/1999 - Penfield Schools begins piloting Constructivist Math program
2002/2003 – Most/all(?) math classes in all grades converted to Constructivist Math
Up until Jan, 2005 – A number of individual parents brought concerns to the district with basically no responses (other than the program is working, will work, and/or is in a trial phase). No changes occurred
Jan, 2005 – "Parents Concerned with Penfield's Math Program" was formed (founded by Bill Munch). Membership quickly rose to about 80 families, all of which expressed concerns. Petition started
3/19/05 - First official meeting of Penfield Parent group
4/26/05 - First petition to School Board (signed by 670 residents)..asking for traditional math. Petition denied.
May, 2005 – Created www.teachusmath.com to express Penfield parent concerns. Web site no longer exists, but it can be viewed using the "Wayback Machine" which records the entire internet; go to http://www.archive.org/web/web.php then enter www.teachusmath.com in the "Take Me Back" box)
Nov 11, 2005 – New York Times Article discussing concerns brought up by Penfield Parent Group: "Innovative Math, but can you count":http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/education/08education.html?pagewanted=all
This article drew national attention to constructivist issues, and Penfield's fight.
Sept, 2005 - 1/3 of 6th graders failed internal assessment of whole number addition, subtraction and multiplication (no division) - not shared until asked at math forum
Sept, 2006 – Constructivist math removed as only method for teaching math from Penfield High School. 9/29/06 Penfield Post: "National report backs math parents in Penfield": "…In June… Superintendent Susan Gray told members of the math parent group that Core Plus is now out of the high school, citing changing state standards and parent concerns."
Oct, 2006 7th/8th Graders from Penfield Found to have very poor basic math skills– NYS assessments for the 2005-06 school year. 41% of Penfield's students failed the 7th and 8th grade math assessments which were given in March of 2006, according to the Superintendent's Report dated October 24, 2006.
Fall, 2006 – Remediation of basic math skills begin. Despite requests for periodic math updates throughout the year, no more updates received.
Nov, 2006 - High school students assigned to AIS
April 2007 – Two voter propositions proposed for placement on May 15, 2007 school budget ballot - Proposition A demanded removal of the inquiry-based math programs and replacement with textbook-based math programs that use direct instruction. Proposition B required creation of a policy for future implementation of experimental programs in the district. Both requests were denied at the April 17, 2007 BOE meeting. April 18, 2007 letter from the BOE stated that both propositions were for items that are not within the power of the voters, and were therefore invalid.
May, 2007 – Formal appeal of the April 2007 BOE decision was made to the NY State Commissioner of Education, Commissioner Richard Mills
Oct, 2007 – Commissioner Mills denies appeal
Feb, 2008 – Parent group's website turned off
June/July, 2008 - Penfield Math Scores up significantly: June 23, 2008 D&C Article: "English, math test scores up area wide." Online table shows increase in % passing statewide tests for Penfield from 85.3% (2007) to 93.3% (2008)..an 8.04% increase (in one year)! July 3, 2008 – Penfield Post Article: ""Much-maligned math curriculum gets good results": "…the district has seen double-digit increases in students passing the state exam." Penfield Parents are convinced this increase was due to a return to teaching of basic math facts.
October, 2011: Cover story on Penfield newsletter: "…Penfield students in grades 3, 4, 5, and 7 had the highest passing rates in Monroe County on the New York State Math exam."
Where’s the math curriculum?
Currently, math teachers in the Blaine County School District are forced to construct buildings without blueprints. District administrators recently purchased new "reform math" textbooks, but failed to first write a revised board-approved mathematics curriculum—a direct violation of district policy.
Without a written curriculum there are no benchmarks of specific skills that students must master. Teachers are currently left to instruct from new textbooks that teach math concepts in depth, but do not develop computational fluency using standard methods—known as standard algorithms. These algorithms were in the first printed arithmetic book in 1478 and are the way most Americans learned to add, subtract, multiply and divide.
A balanced mathematics curriculum has three pillars: computational fluency, conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills. Take away any one of these three pillars and the structure of mathematics learning falls apart. Since the new elementary and middle school textbooks do not develop computational fluency, students cannot then develop conceptual understanding, and therefore do not develop good problem-solving skills. Problem-solving skills come from repeated practical application, rather than repeated "discovery of math concepts" that these textbooks focus on.
Was the interdependence of these three pillars considered when the School District purchased the new textbooks? Many other school districts across the country have either rejected these reform books outright, removed them from their schools after dismal results or integrated them with traditional textbooks to get the best of both worlds.
Given the questionable textbook selection process, will the new mathematics curriculum, yet to be written well into October, be balanced? Will it put the students' best interests above all else?
I would like to thank all the concerned parents who have attended a meeting or visited www.blainparents.org to get informed. Please write to your school board representative with your thoughts.
Kathy Baker
Hailey
Without a written curriculum there are no benchmarks of specific skills that students must master. Teachers are currently left to instruct from new textbooks that teach math concepts in depth, but do not develop computational fluency using standard methods—known as standard algorithms. These algorithms were in the first printed arithmetic book in 1478 and are the way most Americans learned to add, subtract, multiply and divide.
A balanced mathematics curriculum has three pillars: computational fluency, conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills. Take away any one of these three pillars and the structure of mathematics learning falls apart. Since the new elementary and middle school textbooks do not develop computational fluency, students cannot then develop conceptual understanding, and therefore do not develop good problem-solving skills. Problem-solving skills come from repeated practical application, rather than repeated "discovery of math concepts" that these textbooks focus on.
Was the interdependence of these three pillars considered when the School District purchased the new textbooks? Many other school districts across the country have either rejected these reform books outright, removed them from their schools after dismal results or integrated them with traditional textbooks to get the best of both worlds.
Given the questionable textbook selection process, will the new mathematics curriculum, yet to be written well into October, be balanced? Will it put the students' best interests above all else?
I would like to thank all the concerned parents who have attended a meeting or visited www.blainparents.org to get informed. Please write to your school board representative with your thoughts.
Kathy Baker
Hailey
Portland parent, schools clash over math, copyright
PORTLAND — The parent of a kindergarten student says she has been shut down in her attempt to understand and criticize her daughter's math curriculum because the School Department believes she could violate the curriculum publisher's copyright.
Anna Collins said she became concerned about the curriculum at Longfellow Elementary School when she realized there was no textbook.
So, Collins, who is an attorney, decided she would ask to see the texts the teachers use to prepare their lessons.
"As a parent, I didn't have a lot of knowledge. I was brand new as a parent in this school system. I just wanted the best for my child," Collins said.
She received permission to review the teachers' resource guide, which is what the teachers use to develop their lessons.
Collins said she learned the district is moving to a consolidated math curriculum, and that the programs the schools are using are considered controversial by some math experts.
"I started learning about it, and realized there was this whole national controversy about math curriculums and learned my daughter's curriculum falls under this controversy," she said.
Longfellow School uses the Trailblazers program, which is based on the Chicago Math curriculum developed in the 1990s by researchers at the University of Chicago.
Collins said she did not like what she was reading about the curriculum, which moves students away from traditional memorization of multiplication tables and learning long division, and instead encourages students to discover answers for themselves.
She said she found parts of the text disturbing, including a section of the Trailblazers Teachers' Implementation Guide that stated, "even though (the algorithms) are less efficient than the traditional algorithms, they are good enough for most purposes – any problem that is awkward to solve by these methods should probably be done by a machine anyway."
Collins said she wanted to know more about how this algorithm worked so she could help her daughter with her school work, supplement with what she felt wasn't being taught, and argue against the department implementing this program district-wide, which is under consideration.
Her request to photocopy sections of the manual was denied on the grounds that photocopying would violate copyright laws.
A letter she received from a school attorney, Elek Miller of Drummond Woodsum, said parents have a right to inspect any instructional material used as part of their child's curriculum.
"However that provision does not provide parents the right to copy such materials, nor does it preempt the Copyright Act," Miller said.
He argued that if the school were to allow Collins to infringe on the publisher's copyright, the school could be subject to hefty fines.
"She's had full access to the materials she's asked for. She carried it to the next level, saying she'd like to take if off campus and photocopy it," Superintendent of Schools James C. Morse Sr. said Monday.
Morse said Collins is welcome to review the materials after school any time, but that if she wants a copy of the full text, she should go out and buy it.
"I think the school's position in this is incorrect," said Zachary Heiden, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Maine.
Heiden said that Collins' request is protected under Maine's Freedom of Information Act, and that photocopying a public document that was purchased for public use is well within her rights.
"It doesn't seem like the copyright law is even applicable," he said.
Heiden said he would be deeply concerned if the school is denying Collins' full access to these documents because she has been critical of the curriculum.
"That would be highly inappropriate. That would be a real problem. The public records law are supposed to apply to everybody," Heiden said.
But Morse said the district has been responsive to every one of Collins' requests.
"I don't think she's been stonewalled at all. We've given her everything she's asked for. We've been open to her, we've had conversations with her. We've bent over backwards to give her access to the materials," Morse said.
Collins said she feels like she's being bullied into backing down from her criticism of her daughter's math curriculum.
"Being critical of a curriculum is not some kind of personal vendetta," she said. "Is this how the administration is going to respond when parents criticize the curriculum? It sends a negative message."
Collins said she has no intention of suing the school, because that would distract from what the district and she should remain focused on: the math curriculum.
"I want them to rethink this. I'm hopeful that they will," she said. "I'm hopeful they'll step back and realize this is not productive."
Anna Collins said she became concerned about the curriculum at Longfellow Elementary School when she realized there was no textbook.
So, Collins, who is an attorney, decided she would ask to see the texts the teachers use to prepare their lessons.
"As a parent, I didn't have a lot of knowledge. I was brand new as a parent in this school system. I just wanted the best for my child," Collins said.
She received permission to review the teachers' resource guide, which is what the teachers use to develop their lessons.
Collins said she learned the district is moving to a consolidated math curriculum, and that the programs the schools are using are considered controversial by some math experts.
"I started learning about it, and realized there was this whole national controversy about math curriculums and learned my daughter's curriculum falls under this controversy," she said.
Longfellow School uses the Trailblazers program, which is based on the Chicago Math curriculum developed in the 1990s by researchers at the University of Chicago.
Collins said she did not like what she was reading about the curriculum, which moves students away from traditional memorization of multiplication tables and learning long division, and instead encourages students to discover answers for themselves.
She said she found parts of the text disturbing, including a section of the Trailblazers Teachers' Implementation Guide that stated, "even though (the algorithms) are less efficient than the traditional algorithms, they are good enough for most purposes – any problem that is awkward to solve by these methods should probably be done by a machine anyway."
Collins said she wanted to know more about how this algorithm worked so she could help her daughter with her school work, supplement with what she felt wasn't being taught, and argue against the department implementing this program district-wide, which is under consideration.
Her request to photocopy sections of the manual was denied on the grounds that photocopying would violate copyright laws.
A letter she received from a school attorney, Elek Miller of Drummond Woodsum, said parents have a right to inspect any instructional material used as part of their child's curriculum.
"However that provision does not provide parents the right to copy such materials, nor does it preempt the Copyright Act," Miller said.
He argued that if the school were to allow Collins to infringe on the publisher's copyright, the school could be subject to hefty fines.
"She's had full access to the materials she's asked for. She carried it to the next level, saying she'd like to take if off campus and photocopy it," Superintendent of Schools James C. Morse Sr. said Monday.
Morse said Collins is welcome to review the materials after school any time, but that if she wants a copy of the full text, she should go out and buy it.
"I think the school's position in this is incorrect," said Zachary Heiden, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Maine.
Heiden said that Collins' request is protected under Maine's Freedom of Information Act, and that photocopying a public document that was purchased for public use is well within her rights.
"It doesn't seem like the copyright law is even applicable," he said.
Heiden said he would be deeply concerned if the school is denying Collins' full access to these documents because she has been critical of the curriculum.
"That would be highly inappropriate. That would be a real problem. The public records law are supposed to apply to everybody," Heiden said.
But Morse said the district has been responsive to every one of Collins' requests.
"I don't think she's been stonewalled at all. We've given her everything she's asked for. We've been open to her, we've had conversations with her. We've bent over backwards to give her access to the materials," Morse said.
Collins said she feels like she's being bullied into backing down from her criticism of her daughter's math curriculum.
"Being critical of a curriculum is not some kind of personal vendetta," she said. "Is this how the administration is going to respond when parents criticize the curriculum? It sends a negative message."
Collins said she has no intention of suing the school, because that would distract from what the district and she should remain focused on: the math curriculum.
"I want them to rethink this. I'm hopeful that they will," she said. "I'm hopeful they'll step back and realize this is not productive."
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Anchorage School District’s ‘Everyday Math’ Problem
David Boyle (Alaska Policy Forum) states that the best charter schools in Anchorage use Saxon math, but parents face a lottery and waiting list to get into them. He states that only 50% of the students get into these charter schools.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
"Haven't I just paid teachers to do this?"
By LISA HUDSON STUMP | 1 comment
The elementary school just sent a letter home saying I need to teach my child math. I have to teach her the multiplication tables for 10-plus minutes every night until she learns them. There hasn’t been enough time for this in class. Not in first, second, third or fourth grade.
I was balancing my checkbook when I read it. My school tax bill was a budget buster so I thought, “Haven’t I just paid teachers to do this?”
I am committed to helping my kids excel at school. I do sight words and math flash cards. I read to the little ones every night. I have logged 10,000 kitchen table homework help hours by now. Their dad has, too. Our kids are good students and we like to think we do our part.
A parent-child relationship is different from a teacher-student one. My first kindergartner came home, ate a snack, disappeared and then scurried back to the kitchen with a ditto sheet, pencil and red crayon ALL ON HIS OWN, so he could trace dot-to-dot A’s and color an apple because the teacher said so. And he actually wanted to please her and did a great job!
He did it the very same day we spent a half hour arguing about breakfast. Go figure. I almost picked up the phone and invited that teacher over for breakfast the next morning.
My children are taught by wonderful, dedicated teachers. I give these professionals all the credit in the world. I can’t teach so I pay school taxes so educators can teach. Why aren’t they given enough time to teach basic math?
Who designed the math curriculum? I want to speak to this math Einstein about the choices he made for my kids. Why isn’t intensive focus on addition, subtraction and multiplication early in elementary school Arithmetic Priority One? Who decided that parents could just pick up the slack a few years later so teachers could roll right into lessons about fractions now?
I worry about our high school students in the fast food drive-thru window who cannot make change for a dollar without an electronic cash register. If those teens haven’t mastered addition and subtraction by the time they are in high school, we shouldn’t have ever started teaching fractions or multiplication to them. Multiplication is harder, and those kids needed more basic math instruction back in elementary school. It’s too late for them now.
Don’t tell me these kids’ parents dropped the ball and didn’t help teach them to add, subtract, multiply and divide. Parents don’t have the training and talent for this. My children cried because I don’t know how to explain the new math the same way teachers do in class. I learned the crappy old-fashioned math and I don’t have the New Math Teacher’s Manual. Does anybody know where to get one so I can learn how to teach my child multiplication facts the modern way?
Parents work full time at other jobs to pay a professional educator to teach arithmetic.
Having parents handle crucial math instruction is a recipe for disaster and it’s ludicrous to ask parents to do it. I’m sure the math curriculum designer was paid well to figure out how to get it done in school. I really don’t care when and how it’s done. Just do it before our children apply for jobs requiring basic math skills. Please.
Why hasn’t enough math instruction time been built into the elementary school day? Why are we using a curriculum that might allow our kids to graduate without being able to make change for a dollar when the cash register isn’t working? How can we send our high school graduates to college if they need to think for five seconds before figuring out that 7 times 8 equals 56?
I learned that multiplication math fact at age 8 because a professionally certified teacher taught it to me in public school. When I have age-related dementia I will still know that 7 times 8 equals 56, even when I have forgotten darned-near everything else.
My parents treated me to ice cream when I learned my multiplication tables, but that was the extent of it. They were taxpayers, not educators.
Guess I will just buckle down now with the other parents and research how to teach multiplication to children. We don’t want our kids to look like fools when they are old enough to enter the working world and don’t have basic math skills.
Lisa Hudson Stump, Lower Makefield, has three children in the Pennsbury School District.
The elementary school just sent a letter home saying I need to teach my child math. I have to teach her the multiplication tables for 10-plus minutes every night until she learns them. There hasn’t been enough time for this in class. Not in first, second, third or fourth grade.
I was balancing my checkbook when I read it. My school tax bill was a budget buster so I thought, “Haven’t I just paid teachers to do this?”
I am committed to helping my kids excel at school. I do sight words and math flash cards. I read to the little ones every night. I have logged 10,000 kitchen table homework help hours by now. Their dad has, too. Our kids are good students and we like to think we do our part.
A parent-child relationship is different from a teacher-student one. My first kindergartner came home, ate a snack, disappeared and then scurried back to the kitchen with a ditto sheet, pencil and red crayon ALL ON HIS OWN, so he could trace dot-to-dot A’s and color an apple because the teacher said so. And he actually wanted to please her and did a great job!
He did it the very same day we spent a half hour arguing about breakfast. Go figure. I almost picked up the phone and invited that teacher over for breakfast the next morning.
My children are taught by wonderful, dedicated teachers. I give these professionals all the credit in the world. I can’t teach so I pay school taxes so educators can teach. Why aren’t they given enough time to teach basic math?
Who designed the math curriculum? I want to speak to this math Einstein about the choices he made for my kids. Why isn’t intensive focus on addition, subtraction and multiplication early in elementary school Arithmetic Priority One? Who decided that parents could just pick up the slack a few years later so teachers could roll right into lessons about fractions now?
I worry about our high school students in the fast food drive-thru window who cannot make change for a dollar without an electronic cash register. If those teens haven’t mastered addition and subtraction by the time they are in high school, we shouldn’t have ever started teaching fractions or multiplication to them. Multiplication is harder, and those kids needed more basic math instruction back in elementary school. It’s too late for them now.
Don’t tell me these kids’ parents dropped the ball and didn’t help teach them to add, subtract, multiply and divide. Parents don’t have the training and talent for this. My children cried because I don’t know how to explain the new math the same way teachers do in class. I learned the crappy old-fashioned math and I don’t have the New Math Teacher’s Manual. Does anybody know where to get one so I can learn how to teach my child multiplication facts the modern way?
Parents work full time at other jobs to pay a professional educator to teach arithmetic.
Having parents handle crucial math instruction is a recipe for disaster and it’s ludicrous to ask parents to do it. I’m sure the math curriculum designer was paid well to figure out how to get it done in school. I really don’t care when and how it’s done. Just do it before our children apply for jobs requiring basic math skills. Please.
Why hasn’t enough math instruction time been built into the elementary school day? Why are we using a curriculum that might allow our kids to graduate without being able to make change for a dollar when the cash register isn’t working? How can we send our high school graduates to college if they need to think for five seconds before figuring out that 7 times 8 equals 56?
I learned that multiplication math fact at age 8 because a professionally certified teacher taught it to me in public school. When I have age-related dementia I will still know that 7 times 8 equals 56, even when I have forgotten darned-near everything else.
My parents treated me to ice cream when I learned my multiplication tables, but that was the extent of it. They were taxpayers, not educators.
Guess I will just buckle down now with the other parents and research how to teach multiplication to children. We don’t want our kids to look like fools when they are old enough to enter the working world and don’t have basic math skills.
Lisa Hudson Stump, Lower Makefield, has three children in the Pennsbury School District.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Everyday Math Just Doesn’t Add Up
The Anchorage School District commissioned The Council of the Great City Schools to evaluate why the Every Day Math (EDM) program is not increasing student achievement. In a voluminous report, the CGCS concluded that the school district has made some strides in Standards Based Assessment scores following the same students for several grades. There are many problems cited by the study and actions with which to improve the math curriculum. Recommended corrective action was to provide more professional development for teachers and assistance to parents, a Parent University. It seems as if teachers cannot adequately teach to the curriculum and parents find it very difficult to help their kids with homework. This would appear to be a formula for failure for our kids. The study places overall responsibility for lack of progress in math on the ASD staff, principals and teachers.
So, how does EDM compare to the more traditional Saxon math program in the ASD? Teachers, as a group, were surveyed and more than 600 of them responded. Of those who used the EDM curriculum only 34% rated the textbook as “good/excellent”. However, 88% of those teachers who used the Saxon curriculum rated their textbooks ”good/excellent”. If the teaching staff is not satisfied with the textbooks, then maybe the students are having even more difficulty with them. Perhaps, the texts are written to too high a level for most teachers and students. Those who teach at the K-6 grades usually are not math majors/minors and should not be expected to have a strong conceptual grasp of the subject.
In the teachers’ survey there are many comments stating the EDM is too conceptual, taught to a high level, does not provide a good foundation of basic math concepts, and is just not a good fit for the majority of students. It is especially not a good fit for transient students which comprise about 27% of the student population. For example, a nine year old military dependent who has been schooled in a more traditional math curriculum in the Lower 48 would have an extremely difficult time phasing into EDM. Some of these students may eventually get very frustrated and not reach their maximum potential in mathematics. Because of the highly mobile student population, EDM is not a satisfactory curriculum.
Many of the teachers stated that because the EDM program teaches on the conceptual level it would be a good fit for advanced and above average students. But what about the average and less than average students who comprise about 80% of the population on a standard bell-shaped curve? The EDM requires high level thinking which is not for everyone. Teachers further stated that basic skills are not mastered before moving on to another skill. If students are not able to master a math skill through practice and drill, then they probably won’t be able to master the subsequent skill(s). As one teacher said,”drill, baby, drill” regarding mastering of basic skills.
The study also noted that neither principal performance nor teacher performance are connected to student achievement. If there is no one accountable for achievement losses or gains, then how can one distinguish between the good and the bad? If teachers and principals were held accountable for student achievement, then the problem with the EDM program would probably have been identified and corrected years ago instead of continuing for nearly 15 years. It appears as if the only ones accountable are the students.
Finally, if one looks at the “concluding question” in the teacher survey (p.135), one would note that about 50% of the teachers are definitely for discontinuing the program. Some of the comments are very to-the-point: “(we need a)new math progam, Everyday Math is awful and skims areas!”. Many of the comments can be summed up by saying that EDM is not for Title I school students because it is too conceptual and the language is too complex, especially for ELL students.
If the EDM is too difficult for the majority of students, many teachers and parents, then it is probably time to adopt a better fit for our student population. A more traditional math program would enable more parents to help their kids with homework and get them involved in their kids’ education. So, let’s give the customers (parents/students) a break and ask them what fits them the best. It’s the right thing to do.
So, how does EDM compare to the more traditional Saxon math program in the ASD? Teachers, as a group, were surveyed and more than 600 of them responded. Of those who used the EDM curriculum only 34% rated the textbook as “good/excellent”. However, 88% of those teachers who used the Saxon curriculum rated their textbooks ”good/excellent”. If the teaching staff is not satisfied with the textbooks, then maybe the students are having even more difficulty with them. Perhaps, the texts are written to too high a level for most teachers and students. Those who teach at the K-6 grades usually are not math majors/minors and should not be expected to have a strong conceptual grasp of the subject.
In the teachers’ survey there are many comments stating the EDM is too conceptual, taught to a high level, does not provide a good foundation of basic math concepts, and is just not a good fit for the majority of students. It is especially not a good fit for transient students which comprise about 27% of the student population. For example, a nine year old military dependent who has been schooled in a more traditional math curriculum in the Lower 48 would have an extremely difficult time phasing into EDM. Some of these students may eventually get very frustrated and not reach their maximum potential in mathematics. Because of the highly mobile student population, EDM is not a satisfactory curriculum.
Many of the teachers stated that because the EDM program teaches on the conceptual level it would be a good fit for advanced and above average students. But what about the average and less than average students who comprise about 80% of the population on a standard bell-shaped curve? The EDM requires high level thinking which is not for everyone. Teachers further stated that basic skills are not mastered before moving on to another skill. If students are not able to master a math skill through practice and drill, then they probably won’t be able to master the subsequent skill(s). As one teacher said,”drill, baby, drill” regarding mastering of basic skills.
The study also noted that neither principal performance nor teacher performance are connected to student achievement. If there is no one accountable for achievement losses or gains, then how can one distinguish between the good and the bad? If teachers and principals were held accountable for student achievement, then the problem with the EDM program would probably have been identified and corrected years ago instead of continuing for nearly 15 years. It appears as if the only ones accountable are the students.
Finally, if one looks at the “concluding question” in the teacher survey (p.135), one would note that about 50% of the teachers are definitely for discontinuing the program. Some of the comments are very to-the-point: “(we need a)new math progam, Everyday Math is awful and skims areas!”. Many of the comments can be summed up by saying that EDM is not for Title I school students because it is too conceptual and the language is too complex, especially for ELL students.
If the EDM is too difficult for the majority of students, many teachers and parents, then it is probably time to adopt a better fit for our student population. A more traditional math program would enable more parents to help their kids with homework and get them involved in their kids’ education. So, let’s give the customers (parents/students) a break and ask them what fits them the best. It’s the right thing to do.
Friday, October 7, 2011
After math: Arguments over programs divide parents, professionals, leave schools with a problem to solve (Portland, Maine)
PORTLAND — Middle school math programs are generally not considered controversial.
But as Portland begins to implement the new University of Chicago Mathematics program in all three of its middle schools, parents, teachers and math experts around the region are questioning whether the program's goals add up.
Some districts, like Scarborough, have moved away from a similar math program. Others, like Falmouth, claim great success with what critics call "constructivist math," a method that has grown in popularity over the past two decades.
Call it reform math, or call it constructivist math, but what everyone agrees on is that the math taught in today's classrooms is very different than the math many of us remember.
Math wars
"The traditional method worked really well for me. It was easy to teach and easy to get a good result," said Audrey Buffington, a resident of South Thomaston who taught public school math for more than 12 years before becoming the state supervisor for math in Maryland. She now volunteers, tutoring Thomaston students who are struggling with the school's constructivist math program.
Buffington said she is frustrated because Maine schools are adopting programs that buck traditional textbooks and memorization models of learning, and replace them with programs that ask students to "discover" the answer through non-traditional routes that build connections between math and other subjects.
While the new math programs are promoted by several companies and are called different things, including Connected Mathematics, Everyday Mathematics and Chicago Mathematics, they are similar to "Investigations in Number, Data and Space," a program developed by the the Center for School Reform and the Center for Science Teaching and Learning, referred to as TERC, in the early 1990s.
Investigations came out of a grant by the National Science Foundation, awarded to TERC to develop a new way to teach math to American students.
Critics of the program often blame it for U.S. students' consistent decline in math scores, and even a recent decline to 32nd in the world in a international math proficiency test.
"We teach a mile wide and an inch deep," Buffington said of the constructivist programs. "There isn't sufficient practice on any one concept."
She criticized the programs for not teaching long division, a concept she said is vital to more complicated mathematics at the college level and beyond.
Eva Szillery, who has a doctorate in mathematics and runs the state's Maine Math and Science Talent Program, said the programs being used in Maine schools aren't working.
"Many constructivist principals don't work well," she said. "They make it complicated."
Szillery teaches her students math the same way she learned as a student in Hungary, using models math teachers have used for years. She said the country with the highest student math rating in the world, Singapore, bases its education model around traditional structures.
But others say the constructivist programs work well for many students, and that each district is different.
Differentiating
"I wouldn't necessarily say one (math program) is better than the other, it's what's best for the district," Scarborough School Department Curriculum Director Monique Culbertson said.
Scarborough recently replaced its elementary school math curriculum, moving from a constructivist model to a more traditional model based on Singapore's math program, called Math in Focus. The district is still using a constructivist model at the middle school level.
Culbertson said a curriculum committee of about 20 teachers selected the new elementary math program, and that they reviewed a variety of different types of programs before deciding on Math in Focus.
"I think a thoughtful decision was made," she said.
Process analysis
One parent in Portland has openly questioned that district's decision to move its middle schools to the controversial constructivist programs.
"Parents have flip-flopped on the issue over the years. I understand this is a very volatile issue," said Anna Collins, whose daughter just started kindergarten in Portland. "The School Board has a responsibility to create a fair, objective process where people's voices are heard."
Collins, who spoke out at a recent School Board meeting, asking the board members to review the process for curriculum and program implementation, said she believes the board had too little involvement in the decision to use Chicago Math, a constructivist program, in the middle schools.
"I want them to create a process that's transparent and objective so the public feels there's transparency in the system," Collins said.
She said implementing the same math curriculum in all of the city's schools eliminates parents' ability to send their children to schools that use programs they like.
"There are a lot of people out there for whom this is strengthening the argument for school choice. What happens in Portland is going to matter," she said.
A science and math charter school has been proposed for the Portland area next year. It will compete directly with the Portland Public Schools for students and state funds.
"If the School Board does not take responsibility now, I suspect they'll regret it," Collins said.
Beth Schultz's three children went through the Chicago Math program in Regional School Unit 1 in Bath. She lobbied her School Board to ditch the constructivist program and was extremely frustrated by the process.
"Not every curriculum works for every child," she said. "It will probably work for some children, but it wasn't a good fit for mine."
Schultz pulled all three of her kids from RSU 1 last year and now pays to send them to St. John's Catholic School in Brunswick.
"I feel schools should be open about what their curriculum is and that parents should really have a voice," Schultz said. "When they select a school, they should be picking a curriculum that best fits their child."
The Portland School Board has only had a curriculum committee for a year and half, and the committee is reviewing its role in choosing programs, committee member Sarah Thompson said.
"I think it's a gray area," Thompson said. "This is my sixth year on the School Board, and this past year is the first year we've been able to dive into any curriculum issues."
She said she would like to see the community more involved in curriculum decisions, and hopes the committee will be able to bring some parents on board in the future.
Finding an algorithm
Portland's science, technology, engineering and math curriculum coordinator, Dan Chuhta, said the process the city schools used to choose the Chicago Math program was solid.
"We convened a representative group of teachers from all levels," he said.
The new program cost $140,000 in professional development and materials.
Chuhta said the group ranked four programs based on a variety of criteria before selecting Chicago Math.
Critics have said the four programs the team reviewed were all constructivist-style programs.
Chuhta said getting students through algebra by the time they finish eighth grade was the ultimate goal. Until now, each school, and sometimes each teacher, was using whatever program they wanted.
"Each program has its own style. In some cases, the language of it can be different. If we're operating off the same curriculum – the Common Core – then everyone's clear what the standards are," Chuhta said.
The Common Core standards are a national initiative that aims to put all schools on the same curriculum, while still giving districts the ability to choose the programs that work best for them.
While Chuhta has never worked as a math teacher – he was a science teacher before taking on his role as curriculum coordinator – he emphasized the importance of finding a math program that works best for the district.
"I think what we need to do is make a decision that's best for our students and one that makes the most sense for us as math educators. There's not much in education that doesn't come with at least two sides of an argument," Chuhta said.
It's likely the argument will continue as Portland begins the process of choosing a district-wide elementary math program this fall.
Feeling positive
In Falmouth, constructivist math has been around for years. The district started with Connected Math in 1997, piloting the program before adopting it for the middle school.
Math teacher Shawn Towle, who has since become a trainer for Connected Math, said the program was the answer to the district's growth issues in the late 1990s.
"The thing we liked the best, was that ... we could bring new staff members on board more easily. It doesn't matter who teaches it. We're all using the same program," Towle said.
Towle, who won the Presidential Award for Math and Science Teaching last year, said he thinks the argument over constructivist versus traditional mathematics is overblown.
"They're talking about mathematics teaching and learning from extreme points of view. People on one side do everything from problems, on the other side, they do everything from algorithms," he said. "Good mathematics teaching requires both."
But as Portland begins to implement the new University of Chicago Mathematics program in all three of its middle schools, parents, teachers and math experts around the region are questioning whether the program's goals add up.
Some districts, like Scarborough, have moved away from a similar math program. Others, like Falmouth, claim great success with what critics call "constructivist math," a method that has grown in popularity over the past two decades.
Call it reform math, or call it constructivist math, but what everyone agrees on is that the math taught in today's classrooms is very different than the math many of us remember.
Math wars
"The traditional method worked really well for me. It was easy to teach and easy to get a good result," said Audrey Buffington, a resident of South Thomaston who taught public school math for more than 12 years before becoming the state supervisor for math in Maryland. She now volunteers, tutoring Thomaston students who are struggling with the school's constructivist math program.
Buffington said she is frustrated because Maine schools are adopting programs that buck traditional textbooks and memorization models of learning, and replace them with programs that ask students to "discover" the answer through non-traditional routes that build connections between math and other subjects.
While the new math programs are promoted by several companies and are called different things, including Connected Mathematics, Everyday Mathematics and Chicago Mathematics, they are similar to "Investigations in Number, Data and Space," a program developed by the the Center for School Reform and the Center for Science Teaching and Learning, referred to as TERC, in the early 1990s.
Investigations came out of a grant by the National Science Foundation, awarded to TERC to develop a new way to teach math to American students.
Critics of the program often blame it for U.S. students' consistent decline in math scores, and even a recent decline to 32nd in the world in a international math proficiency test.
"We teach a mile wide and an inch deep," Buffington said of the constructivist programs. "There isn't sufficient practice on any one concept."
She criticized the programs for not teaching long division, a concept she said is vital to more complicated mathematics at the college level and beyond.
Eva Szillery, who has a doctorate in mathematics and runs the state's Maine Math and Science Talent Program, said the programs being used in Maine schools aren't working.
"Many constructivist principals don't work well," she said. "They make it complicated."
Szillery teaches her students math the same way she learned as a student in Hungary, using models math teachers have used for years. She said the country with the highest student math rating in the world, Singapore, bases its education model around traditional structures.
But others say the constructivist programs work well for many students, and that each district is different.
Differentiating
"I wouldn't necessarily say one (math program) is better than the other, it's what's best for the district," Scarborough School Department Curriculum Director Monique Culbertson said.
Scarborough recently replaced its elementary school math curriculum, moving from a constructivist model to a more traditional model based on Singapore's math program, called Math in Focus. The district is still using a constructivist model at the middle school level.
Culbertson said a curriculum committee of about 20 teachers selected the new elementary math program, and that they reviewed a variety of different types of programs before deciding on Math in Focus.
"I think a thoughtful decision was made," she said.
Process analysis
One parent in Portland has openly questioned that district's decision to move its middle schools to the controversial constructivist programs.
"Parents have flip-flopped on the issue over the years. I understand this is a very volatile issue," said Anna Collins, whose daughter just started kindergarten in Portland. "The School Board has a responsibility to create a fair, objective process where people's voices are heard."
Collins, who spoke out at a recent School Board meeting, asking the board members to review the process for curriculum and program implementation, said she believes the board had too little involvement in the decision to use Chicago Math, a constructivist program, in the middle schools.
"I want them to create a process that's transparent and objective so the public feels there's transparency in the system," Collins said.
She said implementing the same math curriculum in all of the city's schools eliminates parents' ability to send their children to schools that use programs they like.
"There are a lot of people out there for whom this is strengthening the argument for school choice. What happens in Portland is going to matter," she said.
A science and math charter school has been proposed for the Portland area next year. It will compete directly with the Portland Public Schools for students and state funds.
"If the School Board does not take responsibility now, I suspect they'll regret it," Collins said.
Beth Schultz's three children went through the Chicago Math program in Regional School Unit 1 in Bath. She lobbied her School Board to ditch the constructivist program and was extremely frustrated by the process.
"Not every curriculum works for every child," she said. "It will probably work for some children, but it wasn't a good fit for mine."
Schultz pulled all three of her kids from RSU 1 last year and now pays to send them to St. John's Catholic School in Brunswick.
"I feel schools should be open about what their curriculum is and that parents should really have a voice," Schultz said. "When they select a school, they should be picking a curriculum that best fits their child."
The Portland School Board has only had a curriculum committee for a year and half, and the committee is reviewing its role in choosing programs, committee member Sarah Thompson said.
"I think it's a gray area," Thompson said. "This is my sixth year on the School Board, and this past year is the first year we've been able to dive into any curriculum issues."
She said she would like to see the community more involved in curriculum decisions, and hopes the committee will be able to bring some parents on board in the future.
Finding an algorithm
Portland's science, technology, engineering and math curriculum coordinator, Dan Chuhta, said the process the city schools used to choose the Chicago Math program was solid.
"We convened a representative group of teachers from all levels," he said.
The new program cost $140,000 in professional development and materials.
Chuhta said the group ranked four programs based on a variety of criteria before selecting Chicago Math.
Critics have said the four programs the team reviewed were all constructivist-style programs.
Chuhta said getting students through algebra by the time they finish eighth grade was the ultimate goal. Until now, each school, and sometimes each teacher, was using whatever program they wanted.
"Each program has its own style. In some cases, the language of it can be different. If we're operating off the same curriculum – the Common Core – then everyone's clear what the standards are," Chuhta said.
The Common Core standards are a national initiative that aims to put all schools on the same curriculum, while still giving districts the ability to choose the programs that work best for them.
While Chuhta has never worked as a math teacher – he was a science teacher before taking on his role as curriculum coordinator – he emphasized the importance of finding a math program that works best for the district.
"I think what we need to do is make a decision that's best for our students and one that makes the most sense for us as math educators. There's not much in education that doesn't come with at least two sides of an argument," Chuhta said.
It's likely the argument will continue as Portland begins the process of choosing a district-wide elementary math program this fall.
Feeling positive
In Falmouth, constructivist math has been around for years. The district started with Connected Math in 1997, piloting the program before adopting it for the middle school.
Math teacher Shawn Towle, who has since become a trainer for Connected Math, said the program was the answer to the district's growth issues in the late 1990s.
"The thing we liked the best, was that ... we could bring new staff members on board more easily. It doesn't matter who teaches it. We're all using the same program," Towle said.
Towle, who won the Presidential Award for Math and Science Teaching last year, said he thinks the argument over constructivist versus traditional mathematics is overblown.
"They're talking about mathematics teaching and learning from extreme points of view. People on one side do everything from problems, on the other side, they do everything from algorithms," he said. "Good mathematics teaching requires both."
Friday, September 30, 2011
School Officials Call for Everyday Math Program Review
School officials call for math program review
School Board to consider the recommendation on Monday.
By ROSEMARY SHINOHARA
Anchorage Daily News
By ROSEMARY SHINOHARA Anchorage Daily News
Published: September 30th, 2011 08:11 AM
Last Modified: September 30th, 2011 08:12 AM
Anchorage school administrators are recommending a months-long, in-depth review of the district's kindergarten-through-eighth-grade math curriculum amid continuing agitation over the Everyday Mathematics program.
g-running debate over Everyday Math, the program used in most Anchorage elementary schools, was reignited this summer when the district received a consultant's report on how to improve student math skills.
The report didn't fault Everyday Math, published by McGraw-Hill, but said the district hadn't implemented its elementary math programs well.
Superintendent Carol Comeau said initially she was OK with waiting until next spring to make a decision about whether to stick with the current program or check out others.
But she said it's become clear that controversy about Everyday Math is on many peoples' minds, both parents and teachers.
Parents often approach her and either say they don't like Everyday Math or they love it, Comeau said. Teachers are split over it, too.
"There's just continuous questions about it," Comeau said. "We just think it's time to bring it forward and let people know right up front" it's going to be reviewed.
The School Board is scheduled to consider the recommendation at its Monday meeting.
"I think it's a positive move," said School Board president Gretchen Guess. The administration has laid out a thoughtful timeline for the review, she said, with community hearings to identify issues upfront -- November to February -- and the nuts-and-bolts work scheduled after that.
A full-on curriculum review means creating committees that include educators and community members to do the review, soliciting material from publishers, choosing finalists, presenting the final choices for public discussion, and making a decision.
The committee work will begin when the state adopts new state math standards next spring, Comeau said, because the local curriculum has to reflect what's on state standards and tests.
New, more rigorous national standards are already in place, she said, and textbook publishers are producing new materials that reflect them.
Guess said given the public feedback on Everyday Math so far, she'd be surprised if the program ends up being the district's choice.
Whatever the decision is, the new curriculum would be offered beginning in the fall of 2013.
The cost isn't known, said Comeau, but between buying materials and training teachers, it's bound to be more than $1 million.
The district last year asked consultants from the Council of the Great City Schools to figure out why elementary math test results in Anchorage couldn't seem to rise above the national average.
The council report in June got people talking about Everyday Math. The report said the district needed to ramp up teacher training on how to teach math, and do a better job of communicating with parents -- many of whom say Everyday Math is confusing.
Everyday Math emphasizes the concepts behind math, and different ways of solving problems. Some parents don't think it focuses enough on computation skills like multiplication and division, Comeau said.
"Successful engineers say, 'I don't like the way they present it. It's so different,' " she said.
School Board to consider the recommendation on Monday.
By ROSEMARY SHINOHARA
Anchorage Daily News
By ROSEMARY SHINOHARA Anchorage Daily News
Published: September 30th, 2011 08:11 AM
Last Modified: September 30th, 2011 08:12 AM
Anchorage school administrators are recommending a months-long, in-depth review of the district's kindergarten-through-eighth-grade math curriculum amid continuing agitation over the Everyday Mathematics program.
g-running debate over Everyday Math, the program used in most Anchorage elementary schools, was reignited this summer when the district received a consultant's report on how to improve student math skills.
The report didn't fault Everyday Math, published by McGraw-Hill, but said the district hadn't implemented its elementary math programs well.
Superintendent Carol Comeau said initially she was OK with waiting until next spring to make a decision about whether to stick with the current program or check out others.
But she said it's become clear that controversy about Everyday Math is on many peoples' minds, both parents and teachers.
Parents often approach her and either say they don't like Everyday Math or they love it, Comeau said. Teachers are split over it, too.
"There's just continuous questions about it," Comeau said. "We just think it's time to bring it forward and let people know right up front" it's going to be reviewed.
The School Board is scheduled to consider the recommendation at its Monday meeting.
"I think it's a positive move," said School Board president Gretchen Guess. The administration has laid out a thoughtful timeline for the review, she said, with community hearings to identify issues upfront -- November to February -- and the nuts-and-bolts work scheduled after that.
A full-on curriculum review means creating committees that include educators and community members to do the review, soliciting material from publishers, choosing finalists, presenting the final choices for public discussion, and making a decision.
The committee work will begin when the state adopts new state math standards next spring, Comeau said, because the local curriculum has to reflect what's on state standards and tests.
New, more rigorous national standards are already in place, she said, and textbook publishers are producing new materials that reflect them.
Guess said given the public feedback on Everyday Math so far, she'd be surprised if the program ends up being the district's choice.
Whatever the decision is, the new curriculum would be offered beginning in the fall of 2013.
The cost isn't known, said Comeau, but between buying materials and training teachers, it's bound to be more than $1 million.
The district last year asked consultants from the Council of the Great City Schools to figure out why elementary math test results in Anchorage couldn't seem to rise above the national average.
The council report in June got people talking about Everyday Math. The report said the district needed to ramp up teacher training on how to teach math, and do a better job of communicating with parents -- many of whom say Everyday Math is confusing.
Everyday Math emphasizes the concepts behind math, and different ways of solving problems. Some parents don't think it focuses enough on computation skills like multiplication and division, Comeau said.
"Successful engineers say, 'I don't like the way they present it. It's so different,' " she said.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Spotted: You give new math a failing grade
The answer is simple: old math is greater than new math, according to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
The study, titled Math Instruction that Makes Sense, "demonstrates conclusively that traditional math education methods are superior to the highly ineffective, discovery-based instructional techniques that are in vogue now in educational curricula," said a news release from the public policy think tank.
The story generated a lot of thoughtful remarks from CBC audience members, many of whom shared their experiences as educators and parents, struggling to see the benefits of new math.
A few people couldn't resist commenting on the study itself.
•"Teachers have been saying this for years. But, nobody listens till some so-called expert does a study," wrote LarryM.
•"Wasn't it 'experts' that came up with the 'new math'?," joked D Bertrand.
However, most members in the CBC Community were anxious to get down to discussing the failings of new math.
•"If the new math is so great then why am I having to sit down with my gr. 9, honour roll student every night to google formulas and how-to's to find out how to do her homework? Not only do I have to explain it to her, but I have to learn the new math so I don't get her totally confused." said xtrabusymom.
•"This was obvious ten years ago. My older brother and I were taught 'old math' and my younger siblings 'new math'. They used calculators in elementary school... we weren't allowed to use them until we started doing trigonometry! They would speak of 'groups' and 'sets' and have to do math with pictures... we did ours with numbers," remarked starrydays17.
•"You don't need a lot of new fangled books to show what multiplication and division mean. You can use popcorn, peanuts, etc. My sister had 'new math' and to this day cannot do math. Never learned her tables," added livelylady.
Some felt the problem was far more complicated than the article suggested.
•"I'm a retired Math teacher. The fix is more complicated than this simplistic article states. First of all, the problem starts in the primary grades, where students are allowed to go on without memorizing times tables. You can't do long division if you don't know your times tables. So, students end up in secondary math courses without the basics," wrote bobbytwotwo.
•"So many people here are going on about long division. Why would anybody ever need to do this? I've only done it once in the past 30 years and that was only to demonstrate that I could.... Why waste our time teaching our kids an algorithm that they will never use? Spend the time teaching higher-level concepts than arithmetic," mused Dr. Genius.
Most commenters stressed the importance of teaching basic skills in all subjects, not just math.
• "I am a former educator and this story hits home... I could not agree more - more emphasis has to be put on the basics. I do not care how technological our society has become. Without the basics, society will not be able to use the technology," said redforever.
•"It isn't just math. When I was in grad school, I taught undergraduate laboratory courses and was constantly amazed how even 4th year students expected to be spoon-fed the answers," observed miss.elaneous.
•"And it's not just math skills," added CalgaryFlamer. "I know that when I interview a lot of people, a surprising number of them have extremely poor skills, both spoken and written."
Few people had any answers, though a few people had some suggestions.
•"Back to the 3R's? No, but we must ensure that basics are mastered and that also includes the life lesson of failure and how to deal with it," wrote teacher Kimberleytg.
•"It seems now the education system is more interested in results than the process to get there. Yet the process is the most important part," noted Carsie.
Lastly, bclion provided sage advice:
"What works is parents who pay attention and don't abdicate their role as teachers themselves. Parents who are actively involved in the learning of their children can mitigate whatever latest strategy is being tried on their children that is not best for them."
Thanks to all of you for your comments on this story.
The study, titled Math Instruction that Makes Sense, "demonstrates conclusively that traditional math education methods are superior to the highly ineffective, discovery-based instructional techniques that are in vogue now in educational curricula," said a news release from the public policy think tank.
The story generated a lot of thoughtful remarks from CBC audience members, many of whom shared their experiences as educators and parents, struggling to see the benefits of new math.
A few people couldn't resist commenting on the study itself.
•"Teachers have been saying this for years. But, nobody listens till some so-called expert does a study," wrote LarryM.
•"Wasn't it 'experts' that came up with the 'new math'?," joked D Bertrand.
However, most members in the CBC Community were anxious to get down to discussing the failings of new math.
•"If the new math is so great then why am I having to sit down with my gr. 9, honour roll student every night to google formulas and how-to's to find out how to do her homework? Not only do I have to explain it to her, but I have to learn the new math so I don't get her totally confused." said xtrabusymom.
•"This was obvious ten years ago. My older brother and I were taught 'old math' and my younger siblings 'new math'. They used calculators in elementary school... we weren't allowed to use them until we started doing trigonometry! They would speak of 'groups' and 'sets' and have to do math with pictures... we did ours with numbers," remarked starrydays17.
•"You don't need a lot of new fangled books to show what multiplication and division mean. You can use popcorn, peanuts, etc. My sister had 'new math' and to this day cannot do math. Never learned her tables," added livelylady.
Some felt the problem was far more complicated than the article suggested.
•"I'm a retired Math teacher. The fix is more complicated than this simplistic article states. First of all, the problem starts in the primary grades, where students are allowed to go on without memorizing times tables. You can't do long division if you don't know your times tables. So, students end up in secondary math courses without the basics," wrote bobbytwotwo.
•"So many people here are going on about long division. Why would anybody ever need to do this? I've only done it once in the past 30 years and that was only to demonstrate that I could.... Why waste our time teaching our kids an algorithm that they will never use? Spend the time teaching higher-level concepts than arithmetic," mused Dr. Genius.
Most commenters stressed the importance of teaching basic skills in all subjects, not just math.
• "I am a former educator and this story hits home... I could not agree more - more emphasis has to be put on the basics. I do not care how technological our society has become. Without the basics, society will not be able to use the technology," said redforever.
•"It isn't just math. When I was in grad school, I taught undergraduate laboratory courses and was constantly amazed how even 4th year students expected to be spoon-fed the answers," observed miss.elaneous.
•"And it's not just math skills," added CalgaryFlamer. "I know that when I interview a lot of people, a surprising number of them have extremely poor skills, both spoken and written."
Few people had any answers, though a few people had some suggestions.
•"Back to the 3R's? No, but we must ensure that basics are mastered and that also includes the life lesson of failure and how to deal with it," wrote teacher Kimberleytg.
•"It seems now the education system is more interested in results than the process to get there. Yet the process is the most important part," noted Carsie.
Lastly, bclion provided sage advice:
"What works is parents who pay attention and don't abdicate their role as teachers themselves. Parents who are actively involved in the learning of their children can mitigate whatever latest strategy is being tried on their children that is not best for them."
Thanks to all of you for your comments on this story.
New math equals trouble, education expert says
The answer is simple: old math is greater than new math, according to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
The study, titled Math Instruction that Makes Sense, “demonstrates conclusively that traditional math education methods are superior to the highly ineffective, discovery-based instructional techniques that are in vogue now in educational curricula,” said a news release from the public policy think tank.
The centre suggests that to improve math instruction “schools must place a much stronger emphasis on mastering basic math skills and standard algorithms. Math curriculum guides must require the learning of standard algorithms, and textbooks must contain clear, systematic instructions as to their use.”
Frontier’s education research fellow Michael Zwaagstra said discovery-based instructional techniques are not of much use when students move on to college or university programs.
The study focused on the four Western provinces.
Zwaagstra is quoted as saying that these ineffective, yet commonly used techniques are leaving a whole generation of high school students unprepared for many of their academic or vocational programs.
“In order for students to receive a strong grounding in math, they need to spend more time practising math skills such as basic addition and subtraction along with the standard multiplication tables,” Zwaagstra said.
The methods these days, reported CBC’s Geoff Leo, include moving to experimental approaches and moving to using blocks, charts, graphs “and even experimentation where they come up with their own math.”
Leo said he spoke with a math professor who said students don't know how to do long division.
Leo said some parents are resorting to hiring tutors to help their kids with the current program.
Zwaagstra said in report that first-year post-secondary students “are increasingly unprepared for university-level mathematics, and this has led to a proliferation of remedial math courses at universities across Canada.”
The study, titled Math Instruction that Makes Sense, “demonstrates conclusively that traditional math education methods are superior to the highly ineffective, discovery-based instructional techniques that are in vogue now in educational curricula,” said a news release from the public policy think tank.
The centre suggests that to improve math instruction “schools must place a much stronger emphasis on mastering basic math skills and standard algorithms. Math curriculum guides must require the learning of standard algorithms, and textbooks must contain clear, systematic instructions as to their use.”
Frontier’s education research fellow Michael Zwaagstra said discovery-based instructional techniques are not of much use when students move on to college or university programs.
The study focused on the four Western provinces.
Zwaagstra is quoted as saying that these ineffective, yet commonly used techniques are leaving a whole generation of high school students unprepared for many of their academic or vocational programs.
“In order for students to receive a strong grounding in math, they need to spend more time practising math skills such as basic addition and subtraction along with the standard multiplication tables,” Zwaagstra said.
The methods these days, reported CBC’s Geoff Leo, include moving to experimental approaches and moving to using blocks, charts, graphs “and even experimentation where they come up with their own math.”
Leo said he spoke with a math professor who said students don't know how to do long division.
Leo said some parents are resorting to hiring tutors to help their kids with the current program.
Zwaagstra said in report that first-year post-secondary students “are increasingly unprepared for university-level mathematics, and this has led to a proliferation of remedial math courses at universities across Canada.”
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
NJ - Math in Focus will replace EDM
Changes are ahead for math curriculum and instruction. Students in grades K-5 will have more time devoted to math this year, and the district will replace "Everyday Math" with the "Math in Focus" program. This change means that "spiraling" will be replaced by "mastery."
Rosetta Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, explained that mapping of the grades 6-12 curriculum began in spring. A goal is to increase algebra in all grades, across all levels. Two courses were adopted at CHS last month: Intro to Calculus, and Calculus/Intro to Linear Algebra.
A professional development goal asks teachers to become more "diagnostic" in their teaching, becoming "more adept at diagnosing what students are learning."
Math classrooms are expected to become more student-centered, with less teacher talk.
PSAT testing was instituted for last year's sophomore class. Their scores were used as part of the summer Step-Up classes.
Wilson noted that a goal is to help the community become more aware of what goes on in math classes. Open classes are being considered.
In grades K-5, the program Math in Focus is proposed for implementation next school year. It will replace Everyday Math in K-5. Everyday Math uses a "spiraling" approach to teaching, where a given topic is covered year after year, in more depth each time. Math in Focus, said Wilson, looks to "mastery," where students consider a topic for a longer period.
A professional goal, noted Wilson, is for teachers to build their math capacity, which allows them to teach skills more effectively.
Math instruction will increase to 90 minutes daily; 60 minutes of classwork and 30 minutes of independent work. This will replace some time spent in science and Social Studies, effective this year.
Jennifer Payne-Parrish encouraged Wilson to introduce curriculum changes at Back-to-School night; there are no formal plans to do so.
Andrea Wren-Hardin noted a concern that students will have less Social Studies and science instruction. Wilson acknowledged that those subjects have been "streamlined," with some units of study removed.
A further concern was students who weren't challenged previously, spending 60 minutes daily on math, will now see 90 minutes of the same. Wilson said this will be addressed in each classroom.
Overall, said Wilson, the district is going "for depth, not breadth" in rolling out changes to the math curriculum.
Rosetta Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, explained that mapping of the grades 6-12 curriculum began in spring. A goal is to increase algebra in all grades, across all levels. Two courses were adopted at CHS last month: Intro to Calculus, and Calculus/Intro to Linear Algebra.
A professional development goal asks teachers to become more "diagnostic" in their teaching, becoming "more adept at diagnosing what students are learning."
Math classrooms are expected to become more student-centered, with less teacher talk.
PSAT testing was instituted for last year's sophomore class. Their scores were used as part of the summer Step-Up classes.
Wilson noted that a goal is to help the community become more aware of what goes on in math classes. Open classes are being considered.
In grades K-5, the program Math in Focus is proposed for implementation next school year. It will replace Everyday Math in K-5. Everyday Math uses a "spiraling" approach to teaching, where a given topic is covered year after year, in more depth each time. Math in Focus, said Wilson, looks to "mastery," where students consider a topic for a longer period.
A professional goal, noted Wilson, is for teachers to build their math capacity, which allows them to teach skills more effectively.
Math instruction will increase to 90 minutes daily; 60 minutes of classwork and 30 minutes of independent work. This will replace some time spent in science and Social Studies, effective this year.
Jennifer Payne-Parrish encouraged Wilson to introduce curriculum changes at Back-to-School night; there are no formal plans to do so.
Andrea Wren-Hardin noted a concern that students will have less Social Studies and science instruction. Wilson acknowledged that those subjects have been "streamlined," with some units of study removed.
A further concern was students who weren't challenged previously, spending 60 minutes daily on math, will now see 90 minutes of the same. Wilson said this will be addressed in each classroom.
Overall, said Wilson, the district is going "for depth, not breadth" in rolling out changes to the math curriculum.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Attorney questions Portland's texbook adoption process....
Bill Nemitz: A textbook example of caring
Her daughter, who started kindergarten last week at Portland's Longfellow Elementary School, is still six years away from middle school.
So why was Anna Collins standing up there before the Portland school board late Tuesday evening, raising eyebrows with her questions about the city's brand-new middle school math curriculum?
"My kid is just starting this process. If I don't do something now, this is done -- and I will be on the hook," Collins said in an interview Wednesday. "I will be one of those parents who never participated. I will be one of those parents who didn't show up."
Instead, less than a week after she logged onto her computer and headed for Portland Public Schools' website, Collins has school administrators and board members alike squirming in their seats and wondering exactly who's in charge when it comes to what's going on in Portland's classrooms these days.
"We're very impressed with the quality of the work that she put into her dialogue with us," noted Superintendent Jim Morse. "It's certainly unique in my two years (in Portland) -- I've not seen anyone come forward on a curriculum issue in all the time I've been superintendent."
It all started on Sept. 8, when Collins dropped off her daughter for the first day of school and, that evening, stopped by for a meeting of the Longfellow Parent Teacher Organization.
She had what turned out to be an unusual request: Could someone provide her with a copy of the kindergarten curriculum so she'd know what her little girl was doing each day?
She might as well have been speaking Greek. Curriculum? Hmmm ... what curriculum?
"So I started educating myself," Collins said.
Collins, it should be noted, is a lawyer -- and an intelligent one at that.
A product of the public school system in Russia, where she was raised, she's long had a particular interest in what was referred to a decade ago as the "math wars" -- a philosophical battle between those who favored "traditional," memorization-based math instruction and those who preferred newer, "constructivist" strategies that focus more on real-life problem solving.
Collins, for the record, prefers a blending of the two, with early emphasis on the fundamentals. But back to her research.
"So I go online and start looking at every school in Portland to try and figure out what the math curriculum is," she recalled. "And I can't easily figure it out -- it's not readily available information." Eventually, she came across a letter to parents on the King Middle School website announcing that, as of this fall, Portland's three middle schools have adopted the so-called University of Chicago School Math Project curriculum.
"That was news to me -- on day three of my research," said Collins, who's not a big fan of that program because (unlike Superintendent Morse) she doesn't think it focuses enough on the basics.
Next, Collins went to the laws and policies governing how the school board does business. That's where she found this policy under "curriculum adoption":
"No course of study shall be eliminated or new courses added without an in-depth study and subsequent approval by the School Committee, nor shall any basic alteration or reduction of a course of study be made without such approval."
On Collins went to old school board minutes, where she found neither a vote by the board on the new math curriculum nor any indication that the public ever weighed in on it.
"This cannot happen in a vacuum," Collins said. "If it happens in a vacuum, parents have even less impetus to care."
Tuesday evening, at the end of a long agenda, the board finally reached its last item of business: "Board Focus on Educational Issues -- Middle School Math Curriculum."
There at the podium, all by herself, stood Collins.
She came prepared: Before the meeting, each board member got her bound, eight-page memo (with another 38 pages of attachments) in which Collins analyzed not just how the new curriculum came into being, but how in her view the board's own policies and procedures were either sidestepped or ignored along the way.
"There has been no vote to approve the Chicago math curriculum across the district for all middle schools," she wrote. "Instead, the school board has allowed the superintendent to choose the curriculum by purchasing and implementing a curriculum in the form of textbooks."
What's more, she later noted, "it appears that parents were not involved in the implementation process."
Morse, in an interview Wednesday, said the school board did in fact approve the Chicago math textbooks and other instructional materials in June, after an exhaustive in-house study by administrators and teachers.
The middle school math overhaul, he added, stemmed from his determination to adopt common curricula throughout the city's school system -- and get away from the "disjointed" teaching strategies that for years have differed from school to school (and, in some schools, from classroom to classroom). But what about the lack of a school board vote on the curriculum change itself, as required in the board's own policy?
"We do not believe the curriculum has changed. We believe that the program/textbook materials have changed," Morse replied.
Might others believe differently?
"That's what's going to be teased out at the school board level -- how we understand that together," he said.
That can't happen soon enough for several school board members who were contacted Thursday.
"I think we need a better public process to get at these decisions," said board member Jaimey Caron. "Having a process, regardless of who makes the final decision, I think helps with communication, it helps get information out that is critical to parents."
Kate Snyder, the board's chair, said a workshop was already scheduled for Tuesday, before Collins' arrival, to discuss the board's role in future curricular decisions.
And while she doesn't agree with all the conclusions in Collins' memo, Snyder said, "The timing is kind of perfect. . . . She made me think about some of the planning I'm doing as chair of the board in a way that will definitely improve the workshop on Tuesday -- it will help us find some of the clarity we need."
Board member Marnie Morrione, who wasn't even fully aware that "Chicago Math" is already up and running, said Collins' efforts already have had a "huge" impact on the board and the administration.
"It would be wonderful to have more citizens like her," said Morrione.
Which brings us back to Collins: Having clearly done her homework with the school board, might the mother of a kindergartner have a message for fellow parents?
Indeed.
"Wake up," Collins said. "Make a commitment to go to at least one school committee meeting each year. Just do it. It's not that hard. This is your child's education we're talking about."
Class dismissed.
Columnist Bill Nemitz can be contacted at 791-6323 or at:
bnemitz@mainetoday.com
Her daughter, who started kindergarten last week at Portland's Longfellow Elementary School, is still six years away from middle school.
So why was Anna Collins standing up there before the Portland school board late Tuesday evening, raising eyebrows with her questions about the city's brand-new middle school math curriculum?
"My kid is just starting this process. If I don't do something now, this is done -- and I will be on the hook," Collins said in an interview Wednesday. "I will be one of those parents who never participated. I will be one of those parents who didn't show up."
Instead, less than a week after she logged onto her computer and headed for Portland Public Schools' website, Collins has school administrators and board members alike squirming in their seats and wondering exactly who's in charge when it comes to what's going on in Portland's classrooms these days.
"We're very impressed with the quality of the work that she put into her dialogue with us," noted Superintendent Jim Morse. "It's certainly unique in my two years (in Portland) -- I've not seen anyone come forward on a curriculum issue in all the time I've been superintendent."
It all started on Sept. 8, when Collins dropped off her daughter for the first day of school and, that evening, stopped by for a meeting of the Longfellow Parent Teacher Organization.
She had what turned out to be an unusual request: Could someone provide her with a copy of the kindergarten curriculum so she'd know what her little girl was doing each day?
She might as well have been speaking Greek. Curriculum? Hmmm ... what curriculum?
"So I started educating myself," Collins said.
Collins, it should be noted, is a lawyer -- and an intelligent one at that.
A product of the public school system in Russia, where she was raised, she's long had a particular interest in what was referred to a decade ago as the "math wars" -- a philosophical battle between those who favored "traditional," memorization-based math instruction and those who preferred newer, "constructivist" strategies that focus more on real-life problem solving.
Collins, for the record, prefers a blending of the two, with early emphasis on the fundamentals. But back to her research.
"So I go online and start looking at every school in Portland to try and figure out what the math curriculum is," she recalled. "And I can't easily figure it out -- it's not readily available information." Eventually, she came across a letter to parents on the King Middle School website announcing that, as of this fall, Portland's three middle schools have adopted the so-called University of Chicago School Math Project curriculum.
"That was news to me -- on day three of my research," said Collins, who's not a big fan of that program because (unlike Superintendent Morse) she doesn't think it focuses enough on the basics.
Next, Collins went to the laws and policies governing how the school board does business. That's where she found this policy under "curriculum adoption":
"No course of study shall be eliminated or new courses added without an in-depth study and subsequent approval by the School Committee, nor shall any basic alteration or reduction of a course of study be made without such approval."
On Collins went to old school board minutes, where she found neither a vote by the board on the new math curriculum nor any indication that the public ever weighed in on it.
"This cannot happen in a vacuum," Collins said. "If it happens in a vacuum, parents have even less impetus to care."
Tuesday evening, at the end of a long agenda, the board finally reached its last item of business: "Board Focus on Educational Issues -- Middle School Math Curriculum."
There at the podium, all by herself, stood Collins.
She came prepared: Before the meeting, each board member got her bound, eight-page memo (with another 38 pages of attachments) in which Collins analyzed not just how the new curriculum came into being, but how in her view the board's own policies and procedures were either sidestepped or ignored along the way.
"There has been no vote to approve the Chicago math curriculum across the district for all middle schools," she wrote. "Instead, the school board has allowed the superintendent to choose the curriculum by purchasing and implementing a curriculum in the form of textbooks."
What's more, she later noted, "it appears that parents were not involved in the implementation process."
Morse, in an interview Wednesday, said the school board did in fact approve the Chicago math textbooks and other instructional materials in June, after an exhaustive in-house study by administrators and teachers.
The middle school math overhaul, he added, stemmed from his determination to adopt common curricula throughout the city's school system -- and get away from the "disjointed" teaching strategies that for years have differed from school to school (and, in some schools, from classroom to classroom). But what about the lack of a school board vote on the curriculum change itself, as required in the board's own policy?
"We do not believe the curriculum has changed. We believe that the program/textbook materials have changed," Morse replied.
Might others believe differently?
"That's what's going to be teased out at the school board level -- how we understand that together," he said.
That can't happen soon enough for several school board members who were contacted Thursday.
"I think we need a better public process to get at these decisions," said board member Jaimey Caron. "Having a process, regardless of who makes the final decision, I think helps with communication, it helps get information out that is critical to parents."
Kate Snyder, the board's chair, said a workshop was already scheduled for Tuesday, before Collins' arrival, to discuss the board's role in future curricular decisions.
And while she doesn't agree with all the conclusions in Collins' memo, Snyder said, "The timing is kind of perfect. . . . She made me think about some of the planning I'm doing as chair of the board in a way that will definitely improve the workshop on Tuesday -- it will help us find some of the clarity we need."
Board member Marnie Morrione, who wasn't even fully aware that "Chicago Math" is already up and running, said Collins' efforts already have had a "huge" impact on the board and the administration.
"It would be wonderful to have more citizens like her," said Morrione.
Which brings us back to Collins: Having clearly done her homework with the school board, might the mother of a kindergartner have a message for fellow parents?
Indeed.
"Wake up," Collins said. "Make a commitment to go to at least one school committee meeting each year. Just do it. It's not that hard. This is your child's education we're talking about."
Class dismissed.
Columnist Bill Nemitz can be contacted at 791-6323 or at:
bnemitz@mainetoday.com
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Scarborough (ME) selects Singapore Math
Schools take stock of new math program
Posted by Leader Editor at 9/1/2011 9:33 AM
Categories: uncategorized
By Dan Aceto
Staff Writer
Scarborough students in kindergarten to fifth grade can look forward to a new and engaging way to learn mathematics this year.
The Scarborough School Department now uses Math in Focus: The Singapore Approach. The new curriculum provides students with a balanced, research-based curriculum that emphasizes mastery and understanding of mathematical skills to develop critical and creative thinking, said Monique Culbertson, the department’s director of curriculum and assessment.
Culbertson said the program is an opportunity for students to develop mathematical skills that will lead them to greater success in life.
“We’re very excited about the potential here,” she said. “The national consultant who came in to work with teachers was impressed with the enthusiasm of math instruction and left feeling quite confident, saying we may be a demonstration site in the future. That kind of feedback is exciting and the credit goes to teachers for their energy and time preparing for a new curriculum.”
The new program, which has been in research and development for two years, places greater emphasis on “mastery” of mathematical skill sets before students move on to more challenging lessons said Culbertson.
“The content is not one of a spiraling curriculum where students keep repeating the same thing year after year,” Culbertson said. “The content is one where students’ focus in on a specific area to develop skill and proficiency. They are going to be getting more in-depth on topics because they will be working toward mastery of a skill.”
Like the previous math curriculum, Culbertson said skills will continually be reinforced and built upon, although the new program allows for a greater understanding of different skill sets such as multiplication, division, addition and subtraction. Teaching will involve class-led discussions, as well as independent study for individual students who are working on mastery of certain skill sets.
The framework of the curriculum centers around five core principles aimed at achieving mathematical problem solving: attitudes, meta-cognition, processes, concepts and skills.
The attitudes component deals with appreciation, interest, confidence and perseverance of mathematical topics. The meta-cognition component deals with monitoring ones own thinking.
The processes component deals with thinking skills and strategies. The concepts component deals with numerical, geometrical, algebraic and statistical concepts. The skills component deals with estimation approximate mental calculation, communication and use of mathematical tools, algebraic manipulation and data analysis, according to Culbertson.
The curriculum follows what is known as a concrete-pictorial-abstract progression, meaning that students will understand both how math works and why it does, Culbertson said.
Concrete concepts include physical items that aid in the assistance of learning math, such as building blocks, cubes, tiles, chips and other items. The pictorial component includes pictures, bar graphs and models, number bonds, diagrams, charts and other diagrams.
The abstract component deals with concepts such as numerals, mathematical notation and symbols, algorithms, estimation, predications and written and oral explanations.
Students also will use textbooks and technology resources to assist them in understanding concepts taught throughout the curriculum.
For Kathy Tirrell, math specialist at Scarborough Middle School, the program is eagerly anticipated.
“We’re really excited,” Tirrell said. “One of things that strikes me about it being a good fit is that it has problem solving embedded in the program, so students will be able to move from simple to complex problems, routine to non-routine problems and take their problem solving skills and apply it to new situations.”
“With the combination of problem solving and skills, kids can remember concepts when they go to concrete to pictorial to abstract, and understand why math works, not just how,” said Tirrell, who worked on the Curriculum Committee.
Culbertson said the new curriculum has been evaluated internationally and Singapore has consistently placed in the top three spots in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study during the past 12 years.
“Students using the curriculum tested significantly better than others,” Culbertson said. “This is a curriculum that has a track record.”
Posted by Leader Editor at 9/1/2011 9:33 AM
Categories: uncategorized
By Dan Aceto
Staff Writer
Scarborough students in kindergarten to fifth grade can look forward to a new and engaging way to learn mathematics this year.
The Scarborough School Department now uses Math in Focus: The Singapore Approach. The new curriculum provides students with a balanced, research-based curriculum that emphasizes mastery and understanding of mathematical skills to develop critical and creative thinking, said Monique Culbertson, the department’s director of curriculum and assessment.
Culbertson said the program is an opportunity for students to develop mathematical skills that will lead them to greater success in life.
“We’re very excited about the potential here,” she said. “The national consultant who came in to work with teachers was impressed with the enthusiasm of math instruction and left feeling quite confident, saying we may be a demonstration site in the future. That kind of feedback is exciting and the credit goes to teachers for their energy and time preparing for a new curriculum.”
The new program, which has been in research and development for two years, places greater emphasis on “mastery” of mathematical skill sets before students move on to more challenging lessons said Culbertson.
“The content is not one of a spiraling curriculum where students keep repeating the same thing year after year,” Culbertson said. “The content is one where students’ focus in on a specific area to develop skill and proficiency. They are going to be getting more in-depth on topics because they will be working toward mastery of a skill.”
Like the previous math curriculum, Culbertson said skills will continually be reinforced and built upon, although the new program allows for a greater understanding of different skill sets such as multiplication, division, addition and subtraction. Teaching will involve class-led discussions, as well as independent study for individual students who are working on mastery of certain skill sets.
The framework of the curriculum centers around five core principles aimed at achieving mathematical problem solving: attitudes, meta-cognition, processes, concepts and skills.
The attitudes component deals with appreciation, interest, confidence and perseverance of mathematical topics. The meta-cognition component deals with monitoring ones own thinking.
The processes component deals with thinking skills and strategies. The concepts component deals with numerical, geometrical, algebraic and statistical concepts. The skills component deals with estimation approximate mental calculation, communication and use of mathematical tools, algebraic manipulation and data analysis, according to Culbertson.
The curriculum follows what is known as a concrete-pictorial-abstract progression, meaning that students will understand both how math works and why it does, Culbertson said.
Concrete concepts include physical items that aid in the assistance of learning math, such as building blocks, cubes, tiles, chips and other items. The pictorial component includes pictures, bar graphs and models, number bonds, diagrams, charts and other diagrams.
The abstract component deals with concepts such as numerals, mathematical notation and symbols, algorithms, estimation, predications and written and oral explanations.
Students also will use textbooks and technology resources to assist them in understanding concepts taught throughout the curriculum.
For Kathy Tirrell, math specialist at Scarborough Middle School, the program is eagerly anticipated.
“We’re really excited,” Tirrell said. “One of things that strikes me about it being a good fit is that it has problem solving embedded in the program, so students will be able to move from simple to complex problems, routine to non-routine problems and take their problem solving skills and apply it to new situations.”
“With the combination of problem solving and skills, kids can remember concepts when they go to concrete to pictorial to abstract, and understand why math works, not just how,” said Tirrell, who worked on the Curriculum Committee.
Culbertson said the new curriculum has been evaluated internationally and Singapore has consistently placed in the top three spots in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study during the past 12 years.
“Students using the curriculum tested significantly better than others,” Culbertson said. “This is a curriculum that has a track record.”
Friday, August 26, 2011
Smart Teachers in Stupid Schools
Smart Teachers in Stupid Schools
By Christine D'Amico, MA Elementary Ed
I'm sitting in yet another meeting for staff development on the common core curriculum. This meeting is for Special Ed Teachers, the Special Ed supervisor for the district is talking about "hotspots" – "And one of the "hotspots" as you know, is that our students must tell us where they are academically and how they intend to move to the next level." I raised my eyebrows and made a face in her direction. "What?" she questioned, "We're all professionals here, and do you have something to add?" "Not really" I replied, "No, I insist, you obviously have something on your mind and we'd like to hear it." "Look" I stated firmly, "I don't know many adults who can tell you where they are academically and how they expect to get to the next level, no less children, no less special needs children! Now, the kids can tell you what they like to do and what they don't like to do, but to ask them to present their academic portfolio on the spot is simply not appropriate. The professionals in the classroom must discern and administer efficient methodologies to teach the kids and get them to the next levels; this should not be a concern of the students." We're seated in a big square table; the other teachers are all within my sight. As I look around seeking support, most remain mute not daring to question the status quo, only one strong dynamic teacher nods her head feverishly in agreement and asserts "Exactly!" "Well," maintains the supervisor, "This is what is coming down the pipe all our kids have to be 'proactive learners'." "Yes, well," I quipped, "it's simply not appropriate." "'Proactive learners'" I rolled my eyes thinking, "These people love to use phrases that have snappy ideals with little meaning in the classroom."
The conversation went on to other "hotspots" which made no reference to real scientifically based practices in the classroom, the pressures from above to conform to these requirements are thus thrust upon classroom teachers. Yet another meeting with lots of form and little function while newer teachers do not dare question authority for fear of reprisal and senior teachers object behind the backs of these supervisors - tired of ridiculous meetings promising lots of something delivering nothing. Thus the "Much Ado About Nothing" merry-go-round of pedagogy rolls on.
So how did we get here in our schools and what happens to teachers who really are innovative and question the status quo? First a little history of American Education - American education in the early 1900's was designed to teach students academics: phonics, reading, writing, math, American history, world history, world geography, American geography, science, grammar, art, art history, literature, poetry, students were taught directly and systematically and they were assigned memorization and recitation of important documents. Students in the early 1900's had a course load that was full and diverse. High school graduates during this time had a broad education which was well grounded in academics. There was no illiteracy problem because these students were taught to read phonetically. Their knowledge base was probably better than most college graduates today. Then, along came John Dewey, who said that schools needed to be more sensitive and progressive. "Schools should be places where we can build a new political order, teaching students to think critically and be open minded." This is progressive education. A new era emerged for education.
Teachers were then encouraged to forego academics and put more of a thrust on progressive paradigms such as working cooperatively and learning by exploration rather than rote. A new emphasis on bolstering self-esteem by changing the grading system emerged. New teaching models came into the classroom, out went the memorization of facts and phonics, in came a new pedagogy that was implicitly based called "Constructivism" - "We learn through exploration and we learn to read in the same way we learn to speak." This became the mantra of pedagogues. Group learning, group seating, grading with rubrics, collaboration, open classrooms, schools without walls, cooperative learning, multiage approaches, whole language, the social curriculum, experiential education, and numerous forms of alternative schools all have important philosophical roots in progressive education.
Though the progressive educators end goal for students has always been critical thinking and a highly educated diverse population, their methodologies lack rigor and scientific backing. Without phonics directly and systematically taught in our classrooms, illiteracy soared. First came the "Look-Say" method (remember Dick and Jane?) later came whole language, which outlawed phonics in any way, shape or form in the classroom. Illiteracy rates skyrocketed and though there has been some pushback from parents and educators, these trends remain in place. We are now down to basically teaching three subjects in school, reading, writing and math. The methods employed in the classroom are so inefficient that we have to spend lots of time on these disciplines. What could be taught efficiently in Kindergarten and First Grade is drawn out for years. We can't fit in other disciplines because our students can't handle the rigor. If you can't read, write and spell, you simply can't handle lots of other subjects.
In contrast, students who were educated in the early 1900's with traditional classrooms had many subjects and were able to handle a full course load. These graduates had more knowledge and were therefore better critical thinkers than those who are now subjected to progressive education. In fact, progressive pedagogy produces the exact opposite of its goal and in the face of science, which backs direct, systematic, rigorous instruction progressive educators remain married to their paradigms. Our schools are infiltrated and infected with this disease called progressive education, when in fact there is nothing progressive about it! The progressive model is backwards, it is not helping our students really acquire the knowledge they need to become strong, smart citizens and is forcing the entire system to crumble.
Progressive educators in universities (like Columbia Teachers College) sit around thinking up ways to create curriculum which orbits around their paradigms. College professors follow the curriculum without question; therefore new teachers are indoctrinated in these methods. These methods grab hold of schools and school districts like parasites and because we only have a precious few hours in school with our children, much of these time-wasting, inappropriate pedagogical approaches result in lower academic achievement in our students. These people experiment on our students and teachers with their poorly written curriculum. Many teachers who are under strict orders to use these time-wasting procedures are distraught that they cannot use scientifically based pedagogy in their classrooms.
Progressive educators would like to promote a more democratic society advocating greater equity, justice, diversity and other democratic values, yet their methodologies do just the opposite, with "Fuzzy Math" and "Whole Language" causing lesser privileged students who can't afford tutoring to fall way behind. NYC has 70% of its student population in this category. Imagine how devastating to the morale and sense of self-esteem the use of poor curriculums can have on a child's psyche. These students subjected to these methods grow to believe they can't do anything; they are labeled as special needs children and become distraught that they are not mentally capable of becoming educated. Many are just pushed through the system because there is no where else for them to go. Progressivism which is trying to enforce some kind of social agenda, rather than purely impart knowledge, is causing many students to fail and teachers to become distraught and despondent.
What do teachers who refuse to follow the leader do? Many shut their doors and pull out the curriculum they know works. I know of teachers who, when whole language is being implemented by the district, will use their phonics programs undercover. Teachers will set up look-outs in the hall to see if supervisors are coming and drill students in what to do should a supervisor show up. I have had my students open their "readers" and put in the phonics books I'm using inside. "If someone comes you take the book slide it in your desk and pretend you're reading." I've instructed.
In NYC, the high school teachers in one district staged a protest at the district office against the use of the Teachers College method in their classrooms. These teachers were told to conform to the method or else be punished. The UFT chapter leader who headed up this protest ended up in the Rubber Room with charges of insubordination. He was despondent, demoralized and depressed; worried that his very career would be ended. This brave leader persevered and was restored to his position in school with the charges dropped. The high school teachers won their battle and were told they could use their own methods in their classrooms.
One time during a summer school program, I brought my own personal reading kit (worth $2000) up four flights to my New York City classroom and bought all the kids their own workbooks at a cost of over $250. I did this because the summer school materials were so poorly written and so benign I knew they would not make a dent in the minds of these students who were already anywhere from two to five years behind in reading. In fact, the summer school materials were junk magazines created by some publisher who had a contract with the district. When the summer school district superintendent and principal came into my classroom to observe my students obviously using a multi-sensory method, singing phonics songs, spelling in groups, reading in groups and writing I was questioned, "Why aren't you using the mandated program?" "I would challenge you to think about your choice of curriculum for these students, these kids need a powerful program to get them up and running. I have always gotten high test scores with this program." Later behind closed doors, the principal sternly rebuked, "How dare you confront the superintendent in front of me!" And so it goes, smart teachers with smart innovative programs that actually are proven to work "get it". I was punished severely by that principal for speaking out, who wrote me up and even removed me from the classroom. Yet, my students outscored their peers that summer.
Another teacher who had gotten high test scores repeatedly using her method of spelling and vocabulary enhancement in her classroom was told not use her method as "spelling has nothing to do with reading." (which is a flat out lie)? So, she used the methods enforced by the district. When she was called into her supervisor who was questioning her test scores she said, "Well, I used your methods, I did exactly what you told me to do, so you can turn around and look in the mirror because that's the person who caused these low test scores." After that, she decided to leave the classroom and become a cluster teacher because, "There's just too much pressure on classroom teachers to do the wrong thing." Sometimes smart teachers can't take it anymore and just abandon ship.
In math, if the district brings in a fuzzy program, smart teachers buy their own books, use the programs they know work and close their doors. They speak out against the ridiculous choices made by the district and refuse to use their programs. Some teachers are disciplined for not following the requirements while others can get away with creating their own programs. I don't use the mandated math program in our school; it's the most confusing program I've ever seen. I look at the Core Knowledge requirements and follow it, creating a program for my Special Needs kids. After all, if the math program doesn't make sense to me, it won't make sense to First Graders! Common sense, please!
So, what is a really smart teacher? Smart teachers want to teach using scientifically sound curriculums that work and never fail, even the slowest learners. They want to use what we know about the brain and learning in their classroom curriculum. (Did you know that teachers are never taught brain science in their education training courses? Imagine and these are the people who are working with the brain all day long!) Innovative teachers want to access the entire brain using multisensory curriculums. These teachers want to empower their students with as much knowledge as possible. They look at the whole student, their home life, their diet, their support systems and they have compassion and love in their hearts for each one. Smart teachers encourage and expect the absolute best, yet they make things easy by using direct, systematic, explicit curriculum which clearly lays out expectations and produces measurable results. Smart educators want to learn about what works, these are teachers who will pay their way to conferences which enhance their own teaching so they can impart knowledge in the best most efficient manner in our schools. These are the teachers who will go the extra mile again and again to help their students succeed.
Too often people, especially within institutions, dig their heals in deep into their own paradigms whether correct or not, in order to protect their territory, their status quo, their own need to be right. In education and our schools this is a most egregious offense because, at stake, are the futures and lives of the children we serve. We can no longer afford to remain stoic in our mindsets, and although cloaked with lofty goals, the progressive educational movement in the United States has created a pedagogical mess, which must be untangled and common sense must prevail.
Smart teachers, who are bold and use common sense, must take a stand, and speak out against the common trends in academia to waste time and dumb down our classrooms. We want to produce bright students who have much knowledge and can think critically. You can't put the cart before the horse; the ability to think critically only comes with much knowledge and understanding of many disciplines. Smart teachers in stupid schools still produce well-educated students; we just wish the schools would get on board!
By Christine D'Amico, MA Elementary Ed
I'm sitting in yet another meeting for staff development on the common core curriculum. This meeting is for Special Ed Teachers, the Special Ed supervisor for the district is talking about "hotspots" – "And one of the "hotspots" as you know, is that our students must tell us where they are academically and how they intend to move to the next level." I raised my eyebrows and made a face in her direction. "What?" she questioned, "We're all professionals here, and do you have something to add?" "Not really" I replied, "No, I insist, you obviously have something on your mind and we'd like to hear it." "Look" I stated firmly, "I don't know many adults who can tell you where they are academically and how they expect to get to the next level, no less children, no less special needs children! Now, the kids can tell you what they like to do and what they don't like to do, but to ask them to present their academic portfolio on the spot is simply not appropriate. The professionals in the classroom must discern and administer efficient methodologies to teach the kids and get them to the next levels; this should not be a concern of the students." We're seated in a big square table; the other teachers are all within my sight. As I look around seeking support, most remain mute not daring to question the status quo, only one strong dynamic teacher nods her head feverishly in agreement and asserts "Exactly!" "Well," maintains the supervisor, "This is what is coming down the pipe all our kids have to be 'proactive learners'." "Yes, well," I quipped, "it's simply not appropriate." "'Proactive learners'" I rolled my eyes thinking, "These people love to use phrases that have snappy ideals with little meaning in the classroom."
The conversation went on to other "hotspots" which made no reference to real scientifically based practices in the classroom, the pressures from above to conform to these requirements are thus thrust upon classroom teachers. Yet another meeting with lots of form and little function while newer teachers do not dare question authority for fear of reprisal and senior teachers object behind the backs of these supervisors - tired of ridiculous meetings promising lots of something delivering nothing. Thus the "Much Ado About Nothing" merry-go-round of pedagogy rolls on.
So how did we get here in our schools and what happens to teachers who really are innovative and question the status quo? First a little history of American Education - American education in the early 1900's was designed to teach students academics: phonics, reading, writing, math, American history, world history, world geography, American geography, science, grammar, art, art history, literature, poetry, students were taught directly and systematically and they were assigned memorization and recitation of important documents. Students in the early 1900's had a course load that was full and diverse. High school graduates during this time had a broad education which was well grounded in academics. There was no illiteracy problem because these students were taught to read phonetically. Their knowledge base was probably better than most college graduates today. Then, along came John Dewey, who said that schools needed to be more sensitive and progressive. "Schools should be places where we can build a new political order, teaching students to think critically and be open minded." This is progressive education. A new era emerged for education.
Teachers were then encouraged to forego academics and put more of a thrust on progressive paradigms such as working cooperatively and learning by exploration rather than rote. A new emphasis on bolstering self-esteem by changing the grading system emerged. New teaching models came into the classroom, out went the memorization of facts and phonics, in came a new pedagogy that was implicitly based called "Constructivism" - "We learn through exploration and we learn to read in the same way we learn to speak." This became the mantra of pedagogues. Group learning, group seating, grading with rubrics, collaboration, open classrooms, schools without walls, cooperative learning, multiage approaches, whole language, the social curriculum, experiential education, and numerous forms of alternative schools all have important philosophical roots in progressive education.
Though the progressive educators end goal for students has always been critical thinking and a highly educated diverse population, their methodologies lack rigor and scientific backing. Without phonics directly and systematically taught in our classrooms, illiteracy soared. First came the "Look-Say" method (remember Dick and Jane?) later came whole language, which outlawed phonics in any way, shape or form in the classroom. Illiteracy rates skyrocketed and though there has been some pushback from parents and educators, these trends remain in place. We are now down to basically teaching three subjects in school, reading, writing and math. The methods employed in the classroom are so inefficient that we have to spend lots of time on these disciplines. What could be taught efficiently in Kindergarten and First Grade is drawn out for years. We can't fit in other disciplines because our students can't handle the rigor. If you can't read, write and spell, you simply can't handle lots of other subjects.
In contrast, students who were educated in the early 1900's with traditional classrooms had many subjects and were able to handle a full course load. These graduates had more knowledge and were therefore better critical thinkers than those who are now subjected to progressive education. In fact, progressive pedagogy produces the exact opposite of its goal and in the face of science, which backs direct, systematic, rigorous instruction progressive educators remain married to their paradigms. Our schools are infiltrated and infected with this disease called progressive education, when in fact there is nothing progressive about it! The progressive model is backwards, it is not helping our students really acquire the knowledge they need to become strong, smart citizens and is forcing the entire system to crumble.
Progressive educators in universities (like Columbia Teachers College) sit around thinking up ways to create curriculum which orbits around their paradigms. College professors follow the curriculum without question; therefore new teachers are indoctrinated in these methods. These methods grab hold of schools and school districts like parasites and because we only have a precious few hours in school with our children, much of these time-wasting, inappropriate pedagogical approaches result in lower academic achievement in our students. These people experiment on our students and teachers with their poorly written curriculum. Many teachers who are under strict orders to use these time-wasting procedures are distraught that they cannot use scientifically based pedagogy in their classrooms.
Progressive educators would like to promote a more democratic society advocating greater equity, justice, diversity and other democratic values, yet their methodologies do just the opposite, with "Fuzzy Math" and "Whole Language" causing lesser privileged students who can't afford tutoring to fall way behind. NYC has 70% of its student population in this category. Imagine how devastating to the morale and sense of self-esteem the use of poor curriculums can have on a child's psyche. These students subjected to these methods grow to believe they can't do anything; they are labeled as special needs children and become distraught that they are not mentally capable of becoming educated. Many are just pushed through the system because there is no where else for them to go. Progressivism which is trying to enforce some kind of social agenda, rather than purely impart knowledge, is causing many students to fail and teachers to become distraught and despondent.
What do teachers who refuse to follow the leader do? Many shut their doors and pull out the curriculum they know works. I know of teachers who, when whole language is being implemented by the district, will use their phonics programs undercover. Teachers will set up look-outs in the hall to see if supervisors are coming and drill students in what to do should a supervisor show up. I have had my students open their "readers" and put in the phonics books I'm using inside. "If someone comes you take the book slide it in your desk and pretend you're reading." I've instructed.
In NYC, the high school teachers in one district staged a protest at the district office against the use of the Teachers College method in their classrooms. These teachers were told to conform to the method or else be punished. The UFT chapter leader who headed up this protest ended up in the Rubber Room with charges of insubordination. He was despondent, demoralized and depressed; worried that his very career would be ended. This brave leader persevered and was restored to his position in school with the charges dropped. The high school teachers won their battle and were told they could use their own methods in their classrooms.
One time during a summer school program, I brought my own personal reading kit (worth $2000) up four flights to my New York City classroom and bought all the kids their own workbooks at a cost of over $250. I did this because the summer school materials were so poorly written and so benign I knew they would not make a dent in the minds of these students who were already anywhere from two to five years behind in reading. In fact, the summer school materials were junk magazines created by some publisher who had a contract with the district. When the summer school district superintendent and principal came into my classroom to observe my students obviously using a multi-sensory method, singing phonics songs, spelling in groups, reading in groups and writing I was questioned, "Why aren't you using the mandated program?" "I would challenge you to think about your choice of curriculum for these students, these kids need a powerful program to get them up and running. I have always gotten high test scores with this program." Later behind closed doors, the principal sternly rebuked, "How dare you confront the superintendent in front of me!" And so it goes, smart teachers with smart innovative programs that actually are proven to work "get it". I was punished severely by that principal for speaking out, who wrote me up and even removed me from the classroom. Yet, my students outscored their peers that summer.
Another teacher who had gotten high test scores repeatedly using her method of spelling and vocabulary enhancement in her classroom was told not use her method as "spelling has nothing to do with reading." (which is a flat out lie)? So, she used the methods enforced by the district. When she was called into her supervisor who was questioning her test scores she said, "Well, I used your methods, I did exactly what you told me to do, so you can turn around and look in the mirror because that's the person who caused these low test scores." After that, she decided to leave the classroom and become a cluster teacher because, "There's just too much pressure on classroom teachers to do the wrong thing." Sometimes smart teachers can't take it anymore and just abandon ship.
In math, if the district brings in a fuzzy program, smart teachers buy their own books, use the programs they know work and close their doors. They speak out against the ridiculous choices made by the district and refuse to use their programs. Some teachers are disciplined for not following the requirements while others can get away with creating their own programs. I don't use the mandated math program in our school; it's the most confusing program I've ever seen. I look at the Core Knowledge requirements and follow it, creating a program for my Special Needs kids. After all, if the math program doesn't make sense to me, it won't make sense to First Graders! Common sense, please!
So, what is a really smart teacher? Smart teachers want to teach using scientifically sound curriculums that work and never fail, even the slowest learners. They want to use what we know about the brain and learning in their classroom curriculum. (Did you know that teachers are never taught brain science in their education training courses? Imagine and these are the people who are working with the brain all day long!) Innovative teachers want to access the entire brain using multisensory curriculums. These teachers want to empower their students with as much knowledge as possible. They look at the whole student, their home life, their diet, their support systems and they have compassion and love in their hearts for each one. Smart teachers encourage and expect the absolute best, yet they make things easy by using direct, systematic, explicit curriculum which clearly lays out expectations and produces measurable results. Smart educators want to learn about what works, these are teachers who will pay their way to conferences which enhance their own teaching so they can impart knowledge in the best most efficient manner in our schools. These are the teachers who will go the extra mile again and again to help their students succeed.
Too often people, especially within institutions, dig their heals in deep into their own paradigms whether correct or not, in order to protect their territory, their status quo, their own need to be right. In education and our schools this is a most egregious offense because, at stake, are the futures and lives of the children we serve. We can no longer afford to remain stoic in our mindsets, and although cloaked with lofty goals, the progressive educational movement in the United States has created a pedagogical mess, which must be untangled and common sense must prevail.
Smart teachers, who are bold and use common sense, must take a stand, and speak out against the common trends in academia to waste time and dumb down our classrooms. We want to produce bright students who have much knowledge and can think critically. You can't put the cart before the horse; the ability to think critically only comes with much knowledge and understanding of many disciplines. Smart teachers in stupid schools still produce well-educated students; we just wish the schools would get on board!
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Irksome math program could face changes (EDM Anchorage)
COMEAU: Support for program shifted after critical report.
By ROSEMARY SHINOHARA
rshinohara@adn.com
Published: August 20th, 2011 12:00 AM
Last Modified: August 20th, 2011 12:40 AM
Superintendent Carol Comeau said Friday she is more open to the idea of replacing the controversial Everyday Mathematics program in elementary schools after a critical consultants' report and the discussions that followed.
The report, produced in June by a team from the Council of the Great City Schools, found fault with the district's implementation of Everyday Math.
The program emphasizes the concepts behind math and the different ways of figuring out a problem.
The report said the district had not conducted enough training so that teachers, principals and parents could understand the reasoning behind the program.
The School Board put $425,000 into this school year's budget to allow the district to begin addressing the problems.
On Monday, administrators will present to the board a draft plan for how they hope to improve math teaching this year and beyond. It is mostly centered on increased and better training for teachers.
The meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. at district headquarters at 5530 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Everyday Math is controversial around the country, Comeau said.
Many parents say they don't get it, and in Anchorage most teachers surveyed last year gave it fair to poor ratings.
Comeau said she's not sure yet whether she'll recommend keeping it after this year.
The vocabulary of Everyday Math is hard for students who are still learning English to grasp, and many of those students struggle with it, she said.
Yet a high mobility rate among schools argues for keeping the same program in all schools so students aren't lost when they move within the city, she said.
There would be new annual costs to support teaching Everyday Math the way the Great City Schools report recommends but also costs to convert to a new program that might be easier to teach over the long run, she said.
"I am truly open to any direction," Comeau said. Her position has shifted as a result of the consultants' report and subsequent discussions, she said.
Some School Board members say they're waiting to get more information on what to do about the math program.
"There's a lot of concern about it but a huge expense in dumping it and starting over," said board member Don Smith.
"I really want to hear the hard information," said board member Pat Higgins.
"Ultimately we have to train kids for a new world, a much more complex world. Simple math will not do it," Higgins said.
There's no scheduled vote on math at Monday's board meeting, but people can testify about the draft plan, said board president Gretchen Guess.
She said if the board wants to debate the question of keeping the program, then she would recommend holding a public hearing on the question at a later date.
"I don't want to go back to just doing math," Guess said. "You also have to think about math."
The recommendations to improve the program this year include expanding the number of districtwide math coaches available to help teachers, giving lead math teachers at different schools extra money to take on additional duties training other teachers, and holding public meetings to hear from parents, Comeau said.
One goal will be to offer "just-in-time" training for teachers -- a lesson on how to teach an upcoming section of Everyday Math, she said.
A powerful way to make a difference, she said, is to do what school systems in Singapore and Japan do: get substitutes for teachers scheduled for training, have them observe a master teacher giving a math class, then talk about it with each other and make plans for their own classes.
The school district asked for Great City Schools to evaluate the district's math program because elementary math test results have stayed at about the national average. The district wants to rise about the average.
36 Comments
Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/08/19/2022891/comeau-open-to-changing-controversial.html#ixzz1VZfdh6Zo
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Back to basics
As an attorney and employer for 27 years, I could not understand why job applicants did not know basic math or English. I recently learned that public schools stopped teaching certain arithmetic skills to mastery, including long division, fractions and the number line. Instead, children are taught reform math (also known as “fuzzy math” or “new math”) via a “discovery” method.
Advocates of reform math say that memorizing the times tables is “drill and kill” and that knowing standard procedures is obsolete. They say all children should have calculators and don’t need to know that 7 x 7 = 49.
Of course, if one enters the wrong numbers on the calculator, the answer is incorrect. Students can no longer estimate the correct answer. In math class, children are put into groups to discuss math problems and reach agreement. The smartest student provides the answer. In my day, this was called cheating; today it’s called collaboration.
The Spokane school board has long supported this approach. Sally Fullmer is running to serve on the Spokane school board. She knows that teaching the basics to mastery is essential, and I urge the public to vote for her in the upcoming school board election.
Cheryl Mitchell
Spokane
Advocates of reform math say that memorizing the times tables is “drill and kill” and that knowing standard procedures is obsolete. They say all children should have calculators and don’t need to know that 7 x 7 = 49.
Of course, if one enters the wrong numbers on the calculator, the answer is incorrect. Students can no longer estimate the correct answer. In math class, children are put into groups to discuss math problems and reach agreement. The smartest student provides the answer. In my day, this was called cheating; today it’s called collaboration.
The Spokane school board has long supported this approach. Sally Fullmer is running to serve on the Spokane school board. She knows that teaching the basics to mastery is essential, and I urge the public to vote for her in the upcoming school board election.
Cheryl Mitchell
Spokane
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Children face low bar on math, reading exams (Most fall short of US benchmarks, except in Mass)
By John Hechinger
Bloomberg News / August 11, 2011
WASHINGTON - Almost all states give children math and reading proficiency exams using standards that fall short of federal benchmarks, even after eight raised their requirements since 2007, a US Department of Education study found.
Indiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and five other states raised their standards on at least one test of reading or math in fourth or eighth grades between 2007 and 2009, according to a report released yesterday. South Carolina lowered the bar on all exams.
The study comes after US Education Secretary Arne Duncan expressed concern that states dumb down annual proficiency tests so they can qualify for federal money under the nation’s main public education law. The No Child Left Behind law requires that all students be proficient in math and reading by 2014, leaving each state free to define that measure. Duncan plans to let states ignore the deadline if they agree to raise academic standards and take other steps, he said Aug. 5.
“States need to aim higher for all students,’’ said Michael Cohen, president of Achieve Inc., a Washington-based nonprofit created by governors and business leaders to raise academic standards.
No Child Left Behind’s proficiency requirements create “significant obstacles’’ to instituting rigorous academic standards, Cohen, a former assistant secretary of education under President Bill Clinton, said in a telephone interview.
The report comes as Duncan has already prodded 43 states and the District of Columbia since last year to sign onto US academic standards proposed by the nation’s governors and school chiefs.
The study, which examined a period before that effort gained steam, compared data from 2008-09 state assessments with the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, often called “the nation’s report card.’’The Education Department report showed how a proficiency score on a state test would translate into a score on the federal exam, which is scored on a zero to 500-point scale.
Only Massachusetts, which generally had the toughest proficiency requirements, mandated a score that would be considered proficient on most of the US tests in the study.
A Massachusetts child in eighth-grade math would be considered proficient with a state score equivalent to 300 on the federal exam. A child in Tennessee, which had the lowest standards, would need only 229, according to the report.
That means a Tennessee child could be considered proficient without knowing how to read a graph, while a Massachusetts student meeting that benchmark would likely be able to solve a math problem using algebra and geometry.
Starting in 1993, Massachusetts revamped its assessments and curriculum to make them tougher, and, as a result, state students excel on national and international academic assessments, said Mitchell Chester, the state’s commissioner of elementary and secondary education.
“People don’t rise to low expectations,’’ Chester said in a telephone interview.
South Carolina had among the highest standards in 2007. The state made the test easier to pass in 2008 because of concern so many schools were being labeled as failing under No Child Left Behind, said Jay Ragley, a spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Education.
Bloomberg News / August 11, 2011
WASHINGTON - Almost all states give children math and reading proficiency exams using standards that fall short of federal benchmarks, even after eight raised their requirements since 2007, a US Department of Education study found.
Indiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and five other states raised their standards on at least one test of reading or math in fourth or eighth grades between 2007 and 2009, according to a report released yesterday. South Carolina lowered the bar on all exams.
The study comes after US Education Secretary Arne Duncan expressed concern that states dumb down annual proficiency tests so they can qualify for federal money under the nation’s main public education law. The No Child Left Behind law requires that all students be proficient in math and reading by 2014, leaving each state free to define that measure. Duncan plans to let states ignore the deadline if they agree to raise academic standards and take other steps, he said Aug. 5.
“States need to aim higher for all students,’’ said Michael Cohen, president of Achieve Inc., a Washington-based nonprofit created by governors and business leaders to raise academic standards.
No Child Left Behind’s proficiency requirements create “significant obstacles’’ to instituting rigorous academic standards, Cohen, a former assistant secretary of education under President Bill Clinton, said in a telephone interview.
The report comes as Duncan has already prodded 43 states and the District of Columbia since last year to sign onto US academic standards proposed by the nation’s governors and school chiefs.
The study, which examined a period before that effort gained steam, compared data from 2008-09 state assessments with the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, often called “the nation’s report card.’’The Education Department report showed how a proficiency score on a state test would translate into a score on the federal exam, which is scored on a zero to 500-point scale.
Only Massachusetts, which generally had the toughest proficiency requirements, mandated a score that would be considered proficient on most of the US tests in the study.
A Massachusetts child in eighth-grade math would be considered proficient with a state score equivalent to 300 on the federal exam. A child in Tennessee, which had the lowest standards, would need only 229, according to the report.
That means a Tennessee child could be considered proficient without knowing how to read a graph, while a Massachusetts student meeting that benchmark would likely be able to solve a math problem using algebra and geometry.
Starting in 1993, Massachusetts revamped its assessments and curriculum to make them tougher, and, as a result, state students excel on national and international academic assessments, said Mitchell Chester, the state’s commissioner of elementary and secondary education.
“People don’t rise to low expectations,’’ Chester said in a telephone interview.
South Carolina had among the highest standards in 2007. The state made the test easier to pass in 2008 because of concern so many schools were being labeled as failing under No Child Left Behind, said Jay Ragley, a spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Education.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Wasting time and money: Math program doesn't add up
Our standing in the world teaching our children the basics of mathematics and the sciences is not very good. The last time I noticed an article on this topic we were somewhere in or around 25th in successfully teaching them these two important topics.
The standings are somewhat misleading since the way each country measures its ability to teach these subjects is different, but one thing is certain — we are having a serious problem successfully teaching these important subjects.
There are three primary possibilities to explain this dismal fact. We can blame our teachers for not being qualified to teach these subjects, or we can blame our students for not being as capable as other students in developed countries, or we can look at how these topics are introduced and taught to our students.
I have been volunteering in our public schools, primarily in fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade mathematics classes for the past five years and without exception I can state that our teachers are very well qualified to teach mathematics. They are not the problem. Again, from personal experience I can state our students are the equal of anywhere else in the world. They are not the problem.
Having eliminated the teachers and the students as the cause of our poor standing there is just one conclusion left to explain why we are where we are and that is the material that is used to teach our students. The one we use in Bensalem in K-6 is the Everyday Mathematics program. It is widely acclaimed and used throughout the United States. It is therefore the one constant to explain our rating.
The publishers disagree with me. As written on their website: “Everyday Mathematics has been the subject of numerous studies, and the data is overwhelmingly positive, and it received the highest rating of any published curriculum reviewed by the Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse.”
The website boasts that the data is overwhelmingly positive while the actual results throughout the United States, as indicated by worldwide ratings, are anything but overwhelmingly positive. Bragging that the results are “positive” when we are 25th are mutually exclusive conclusions.
The program has fatal flaws because it does not stress the basics that are needed to progress to higher levels of mathematics. It uses something called “the spiral method” where mathematical topics are touched upon briefly over and over with the assumption that if students don’t understand a topic on their first exposure to it, it is not troubling because the topic will be seen again at a later date so they’ll have another opportunity to grasp it.
What the program calls a “spiral method” I call a chaotic method and the result of the chaotic method is that many students in the sixth grade are still unsure of simple multiplication and therefore struggle mightily with division. If their calculators were taken away from them, too many of them would be close to helpless.
Relying on calculators instead of knowledge is a monumental mistake and goes a long way in explaining why our worldwide standing is so low. Bluntly stated, there is no substitute for mastering the basics.
Everyday Mathematics is also terribly expensive to maintain. Instead of buying text books for each student that might last for four or five years, every year each student gets two math journals and one student reference book. In addition, the journals, on too many pages, do not give the student space to work out the problems.
There is space only for answers and that in itself is a fatal flaw. The teacher needs to see how a student arrived at an answer, not just the numbers in the answer.
This system commits us to an annual cost and waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ben Franklin wrote: “A penny saved is a penny earned,” and we need to stop wasting pennies. With our school taxes going up again this year, it is time to eliminate waste. At a budget meeting of the Bensalem school board I begged them to stop using this program. It is time to discontinue its use and get back to basics
The standings are somewhat misleading since the way each country measures its ability to teach these subjects is different, but one thing is certain — we are having a serious problem successfully teaching these important subjects.
There are three primary possibilities to explain this dismal fact. We can blame our teachers for not being qualified to teach these subjects, or we can blame our students for not being as capable as other students in developed countries, or we can look at how these topics are introduced and taught to our students.
I have been volunteering in our public schools, primarily in fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade mathematics classes for the past five years and without exception I can state that our teachers are very well qualified to teach mathematics. They are not the problem. Again, from personal experience I can state our students are the equal of anywhere else in the world. They are not the problem.
Having eliminated the teachers and the students as the cause of our poor standing there is just one conclusion left to explain why we are where we are and that is the material that is used to teach our students. The one we use in Bensalem in K-6 is the Everyday Mathematics program. It is widely acclaimed and used throughout the United States. It is therefore the one constant to explain our rating.
The publishers disagree with me. As written on their website: “Everyday Mathematics has been the subject of numerous studies, and the data is overwhelmingly positive, and it received the highest rating of any published curriculum reviewed by the Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse.”
The website boasts that the data is overwhelmingly positive while the actual results throughout the United States, as indicated by worldwide ratings, are anything but overwhelmingly positive. Bragging that the results are “positive” when we are 25th are mutually exclusive conclusions.
The program has fatal flaws because it does not stress the basics that are needed to progress to higher levels of mathematics. It uses something called “the spiral method” where mathematical topics are touched upon briefly over and over with the assumption that if students don’t understand a topic on their first exposure to it, it is not troubling because the topic will be seen again at a later date so they’ll have another opportunity to grasp it.
What the program calls a “spiral method” I call a chaotic method and the result of the chaotic method is that many students in the sixth grade are still unsure of simple multiplication and therefore struggle mightily with division. If their calculators were taken away from them, too many of them would be close to helpless.
Relying on calculators instead of knowledge is a monumental mistake and goes a long way in explaining why our worldwide standing is so low. Bluntly stated, there is no substitute for mastering the basics.
Everyday Mathematics is also terribly expensive to maintain. Instead of buying text books for each student that might last for four or five years, every year each student gets two math journals and one student reference book. In addition, the journals, on too many pages, do not give the student space to work out the problems.
There is space only for answers and that in itself is a fatal flaw. The teacher needs to see how a student arrived at an answer, not just the numbers in the answer.
This system commits us to an annual cost and waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ben Franklin wrote: “A penny saved is a penny earned,” and we need to stop wasting pennies. With our school taxes going up again this year, it is time to eliminate waste. At a budget meeting of the Bensalem school board I begged them to stop using this program. It is time to discontinue its use and get back to basics
Friday, July 22, 2011
two minute video: U.S. Government Should Stop Financing Arithmetic Avoidance by Jerome Dancis, spoken and written commentary, PCAST July 15, 2011
The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded such textbooks as Everyday Math, Terc Investigations, etc.
U.S. Government Should Stop Financing Arithmetic Avoidance
By Jerome Dancis, Associate Professor Emeritus, Math Dept., Univ. of MD Math Education Website: www.math.umd.edu\~jnd
I handed the young cashier five quarters; she wanted to enter the amount into the cash register, but could not calculate their total worth. Twenty years ago, we expected cashiers to know that five quarters is $1.25. This simple type of Arithmetic problem is barely taught today. College math professors are distressed by the declining level of understanding of arithmetic and Algebra by masses of college students . For example:
Decline in Percent of freshmen entering colleges in Maryland, who know Arithmetic and real high school Algebra I .
1998 2005 2006
Whites 67% 60% 58%
African-Americans 44% 33% 36%
Asian-Americans 79% 74% 76%
Hispanics 56% 42% 43%
Related Data from MD. From 1998 to 2005, the number of white graduates increased by 11% (from 14,473 to 16,127), but the number who knew Arithmetic and high school Algebra I decreased (from 9703 to 9619). Similarly, from 1998 to 2005, the number of African-American graduates who knew Arithmetic and high school Algebra I went down in spite of increased college enrollments of females by 21% and males by 31%.
At the high end: “[From 1985–2005] Fall term enrollments in Calculus II dropped from 115,000 to 104,000 [at U.S. colleges].” Second year, Calculus II is required for a college degree in engineering.
That understanding of arithmetic and arithmetic-based Algebra (symbolic Algebra) has dropped considerably among college freshmen is a natural consequence of the avoidance and minimization of arithmetic and symbolic Algebra by textbooks and many state math assessments during the past 20 years. Where did this start?
It started with Education professors against Arithmetic Calculations.
Only about one out of three education professors surveyed said that its “absolutely essential” to teach math facts ... So two out of three education professors have taught current teachers, math coaches and state and district math supervisors that it is not important for students to memorize math facts.
For the past 20 years, textbooks and state standards of about 45 states have been guided by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM ) 1989 and 2000 Standards, which marginalizes arithmetic. The NCTM 1989 standards state: "This is not to suggest that valuable time should be devoted to exercises like (17/24) + (5/18) or 5 3/4 x 4 1/4".
“[There are] more than a dozen defective K-12 math programs funded by the National Science Foundation. ... from [its] Education and Human Resources (EHR) Division. ...
The ... radical deemphasis of algebra and arithmetic — the prerequisite to algebra — in NSF-funded and NSF-distributed math programs has stark consequences for science education, especially physics. When the isolation of a variable in a simple equation is laborious for students rather than automatic, the depth of instruction in high school physics courses is severely limited. At the university level, students struggling with elementary algebra find themselves adrift in their calculus classes, and success thereafter in physics courses is elusive.” (Also engineering courses) [School math books, nonsense, and the National Science Foundation, American Journal of Physics]
A resource book, for a widely used NSF funded program, explains: “In the Investigations curriculum, standard algorithms are not taught because they interfere with a child’s growing sense and fluency with the number system.”
Relatedly, “National science foundation systemic initiatives: how a small amount of federal money promotes ill-designed mathematics and science programs in k-12 and undermines local control of education”. Absurd!
A crucial observation of a 2011 article is “We found ... a deliberate avoidance of symbolic manipulation in algebra ... .” in High School Math Textbooks. Examples of symbolic manipulation in algebra are 2x + 3x = 5x and
Find R from the formula U = E – IR. (Answer: R = (E–U)/I). (But, only two of three Finnish students, who passed the Finnish Advanced college matriculation examination in mathematics, could solve this equation. )
It was suggested that high school graduates can graph a simple line [like y = 2x +3] without a graphing calculator. But, the head of math instruction for the state of Maryland disagreed. "The technology is there. It's not going to go away," she said. "There is a limited population who can do math symbolically, the way mathematicians do. If this is an exam for all students, we want to make it comfortable for however students learn." [“With 'Pretend' Testing, a Poor Imitation of Preparing Students”, Washington Post]
The Prince George’s County (Maryland) school system does NOT expect students to know math facts. “a [Prince George’s County, Maryland] math coordinator [said] that county students should have a ‘sense’ of what 9x8 is.” The implication being that students can use calculators to find that 9x8 = 72.
Recommendation 1. The NSF and Dept. of Education should support those colleges of education, that train future elementary and middle school teachers to be fully knowledgeable in elementary and middle school math and to know the importance of Arithmetic and algebra.
As Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said (May 11, 2009 at Brookings Institution): You all well know that it is hard to teach what you don't know. When we get to 6th, 7th, and 8th grades, we see a lot of students start to lose interests in math and science, and guess why, because their teachers don't know math and science so it is hard to really instill passion and a love for learning if you are struggling with the content yourself.
The inadequate preparation in Mathematics of future elementary school teachers by 67 of the 77 colleges surveyed was documented by the very good National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) 2008 report, “No Common Denominator: The Preparation of Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America's Education Schools” [NOT].
Warning. The influential NCTM’s president continues the attacks on Algebra:
“Endless Algebra—the Deadly Pathway from High School Mathematics to College Mathematics”. This was essentially “seconded” by a talk presented at a TED $5000+ conference. The implementation of this attitude will prevent the achievement of PCAST goals for increasing STEM graduates.
Recommendation 2. It is crucial that NSF and Dept. of Education cease funding grants to colleges of education and professional development that promote avoidance of Arithmetic and Algebraic calculations. Rather NSF and Dept. of Education should fund grants to colleges of education that do promote learning and understanding of Arithmetic and Algebraic calculations.
U.S. Government Should Stop Financing Arithmetic Avoidance
By Jerome Dancis, Associate Professor Emeritus, Math Dept., Univ. of MD Math Education Website: www.math.umd.edu\~jnd
I handed the young cashier five quarters; she wanted to enter the amount into the cash register, but could not calculate their total worth. Twenty years ago, we expected cashiers to know that five quarters is $1.25. This simple type of Arithmetic problem is barely taught today. College math professors are distressed by the declining level of understanding of arithmetic and Algebra by masses of college students . For example:
Decline in Percent of freshmen entering colleges in Maryland, who know Arithmetic and real high school Algebra I .
1998 2005 2006
Whites 67% 60% 58%
African-Americans 44% 33% 36%
Asian-Americans 79% 74% 76%
Hispanics 56% 42% 43%
Related Data from MD. From 1998 to 2005, the number of white graduates increased by 11% (from 14,473 to 16,127), but the number who knew Arithmetic and high school Algebra I decreased (from 9703 to 9619). Similarly, from 1998 to 2005, the number of African-American graduates who knew Arithmetic and high school Algebra I went down in spite of increased college enrollments of females by 21% and males by 31%.
At the high end: “[From 1985–2005] Fall term enrollments in Calculus II dropped from 115,000 to 104,000 [at U.S. colleges].” Second year, Calculus II is required for a college degree in engineering.
That understanding of arithmetic and arithmetic-based Algebra (symbolic Algebra) has dropped considerably among college freshmen is a natural consequence of the avoidance and minimization of arithmetic and symbolic Algebra by textbooks and many state math assessments during the past 20 years. Where did this start?
It started with Education professors against Arithmetic Calculations.
Only about one out of three education professors surveyed said that its “absolutely essential” to teach math facts ... So two out of three education professors have taught current teachers, math coaches and state and district math supervisors that it is not important for students to memorize math facts.
For the past 20 years, textbooks and state standards of about 45 states have been guided by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM ) 1989 and 2000 Standards, which marginalizes arithmetic. The NCTM 1989 standards state: "This is not to suggest that valuable time should be devoted to exercises like (17/24) + (5/18) or 5 3/4 x 4 1/4".
“[There are] more than a dozen defective K-12 math programs funded by the National Science Foundation. ... from [its] Education and Human Resources (EHR) Division. ...
The ... radical deemphasis of algebra and arithmetic — the prerequisite to algebra — in NSF-funded and NSF-distributed math programs has stark consequences for science education, especially physics. When the isolation of a variable in a simple equation is laborious for students rather than automatic, the depth of instruction in high school physics courses is severely limited. At the university level, students struggling with elementary algebra find themselves adrift in their calculus classes, and success thereafter in physics courses is elusive.” (Also engineering courses) [School math books, nonsense, and the National Science Foundation, American Journal of Physics]
A resource book, for a widely used NSF funded program, explains: “In the Investigations curriculum, standard algorithms are not taught because they interfere with a child’s growing sense and fluency with the number system.”
Relatedly, “National science foundation systemic initiatives: how a small amount of federal money promotes ill-designed mathematics and science programs in k-12 and undermines local control of education”. Absurd!
A crucial observation of a 2011 article is “We found ... a deliberate avoidance of symbolic manipulation in algebra ... .” in High School Math Textbooks. Examples of symbolic manipulation in algebra are 2x + 3x = 5x and
Find R from the formula U = E – IR. (Answer: R = (E–U)/I). (But, only two of three Finnish students, who passed the Finnish Advanced college matriculation examination in mathematics, could solve this equation. )
It was suggested that high school graduates can graph a simple line [like y = 2x +3] without a graphing calculator. But, the head of math instruction for the state of Maryland disagreed. "The technology is there. It's not going to go away," she said. "There is a limited population who can do math symbolically, the way mathematicians do. If this is an exam for all students, we want to make it comfortable for however students learn." [“With 'Pretend' Testing, a Poor Imitation of Preparing Students”, Washington Post]
The Prince George’s County (Maryland) school system does NOT expect students to know math facts. “a [Prince George’s County, Maryland] math coordinator [said] that county students should have a ‘sense’ of what 9x8 is.” The implication being that students can use calculators to find that 9x8 = 72.
Recommendation 1. The NSF and Dept. of Education should support those colleges of education, that train future elementary and middle school teachers to be fully knowledgeable in elementary and middle school math and to know the importance of Arithmetic and algebra.
As Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said (May 11, 2009 at Brookings Institution): You all well know that it is hard to teach what you don't know. When we get to 6th, 7th, and 8th grades, we see a lot of students start to lose interests in math and science, and guess why, because their teachers don't know math and science so it is hard to really instill passion and a love for learning if you are struggling with the content yourself.
The inadequate preparation in Mathematics of future elementary school teachers by 67 of the 77 colleges surveyed was documented by the very good National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) 2008 report, “No Common Denominator: The Preparation of Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America's Education Schools” [NOT].
Warning. The influential NCTM’s president continues the attacks on Algebra:
“Endless Algebra—the Deadly Pathway from High School Mathematics to College Mathematics”. This was essentially “seconded” by a talk presented at a TED $5000+ conference. The implementation of this attitude will prevent the achievement of PCAST goals for increasing STEM graduates.
Recommendation 2. It is crucial that NSF and Dept. of Education cease funding grants to colleges of education and professional development that promote avoidance of Arithmetic and Algebraic calculations. Rather NSF and Dept. of Education should fund grants to colleges of education that do promote learning and understanding of Arithmetic and Algebraic calculations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)