March 17, 2010
Some Mainers just lost school choice
— In an April 18 column in the Press Herald (''Consolidated schools good for kids''), William Shuttleworth, superintendent of the new Regional School Unit in Bath, RSU 1, was full of praise for district consolidation.
His new RSU, he predicted, will save taxpayers money while improving student achievement and will provide ''unbridled opportunities'' for its students.
Shuttleworth neglected to mention that the RSU 1 merger took away a number of opportunities as well, by eliminating school choice options for hundreds of families.
Until the creation of RSU 1, students in Arrowsic, Phippsburg, West Bath, and Woolwich were allowed to attend whichever high school, public or private, best met their needs.
Education Department data from 2004 reveals that while the majority of those students attended the public high school in Bath, fully a quarter of the high school students in the four towns chose to go elsewhere.
Some attended other nearby public schools in Brunswick or Wiscasset, while others chose to attend area private schools, such as Lincoln Academy, North Yarmouth Academy, the Hyde School and Waynflete.
Those days are over, however.
Henceforth, all high school students in the four towns will be forced to attend the high school in Bath, whether they wish to or not. Families of means, of course, may decide to send their children to area private schools and pay the tuition themselves, but less-fortunate families will no longer have any choice of high school at all.
The architects of the merger plan used a two-pronged approach to eliminate school choice, a strategy that is likely to be employed by opponents of choice elsewhere as school district consolidation efforts move forward across the state.
First, it was suggested that school choice caused ''inefficiencies.'' A November 2006 report by the area's consolidation committee claimed that ''both teachers and facilities should be more efficiently employed by requiring all regional students to attend regional schools.''
In other words, too many students who were given a choice were not choosing the high school in Bath, resulting in underutilized educational resources there.
This problem could have been solved, of course, by improving the educational product available at the high school and winning back those students who made other choices. The consolidating committee chose instead to take the simpler route, eliminating the competition by abolishing school choice.
Second, understanding that many area families valued the right to choose, the architects of the merger cleverly included a ''grandfathering'' provision, which allows students currently attending schools outside the proposed new district to continue to do so, along with their siblings. This had the intended effect of silencing choice-supporting parents, making approval that much easier.
The merger plan also gives families the right to choose from among the handful of elementary schools in the new district, which allows merger supporters to claim, as Shuttleworth did in his column, that ''kids get to make school choices.''
With regard to high school, however, the choice is simple -- there is but one.
The swiftness with which a long-held tradition of high school choice was eliminated in the Bath area should cause enormous concern to those families across the state currently enjoying the freedom and opportunity of school choice.
As school districts look to comply with the state's consolidation law, choice has come under ever-increasing attack.
Maine has one of the nation's oldest and most well-established school-choice programs, the envy of parents across the nation wishing for similar opportunities.
Here in Maine, though, consolidation has put school choice in great danger.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Cost of reform math program to rise more than 40% in 2012-13
Pelhem, NY parents fight to remove reform math program.
No Wonder Johnny (Still) Can’t Read
Schools of education focus on fads, not knowledge and skills. I know that from experience.
By Larry Sand
By Larry Sand
Sunday, January 1, 2012
The Math Debate: When Johnny Can't Count
The Math Debate: When Johnny Can't Count
A new survey shows three out of four high school graduates aren't ready for college even though they've taken the recommended classes. The problem for many students is math.
A new survey shows three out of four high school graduates aren't ready for college even though they've taken the recommended classes. The problem for many students is math.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)