kitchen table math, the sequel: selling snake oil

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

selling snake oil

Now this takes audacity.

To the unsuspecting reader this article in the Cincinnati Recorder starts off innocently enough:

Elementary students in the Kings Local School District won't be learning arithmetic next year - they'll be learning mathematics.

According to Angie Thompson, Kings elementary curriculum specialist, there is a difference - and it can make a child more successful in math.

Can you hear the local tutors licking their chops? I swear they are behind all of this. Who else benefits as much?

Pity the elementary students of the Kings Local School District in Cincinnati--they're in store for a bumpy ride the next few years.

It's bad enough that they're going to lose arithmetic. But, they also going to be getting "mathematics" and you know what that's going to be:

The district is getting rid of arithmetic, which consists of memorization of math concepts and procedures for solving problems, in the elementary grades.

The replacement is mathematics, a more unprocedural, inquiry-based approach to math.

First they masterfully redefine "mathematics" but then they follow it up with a brutally honest description of the snake oil--"a more unprocedural, inquiry-based approach." New math now with 60% more poison.

Students will be asked to develop a deep understanding of number concepts and how numbers relate, so they can better understand how to solve problems, why they're solving the problem and be able to find their own method to reach the solution, Thompson said.

More honesty. Students aren't going to "develop a deep understanding of [math]." We know that's impossible. They are only going to be "asked to develop a deep understanding." Many will choose not to answer. We will call these kids unengaged slackers and label them "learning disabled."

The teachers' roles are no longer showing the procedure and having them practice over and over," she said.

"Teachers are being taught to teach in a way that's different from the way they were taught. The way they were taught was very fragmented. Nothing ever connected.

If they think that topics in the traditional curriculum didn't connect and were fragmented wait until they get a load of the amazingly incoherent and illogical structure of the wondrous inquiry-based math curriculum that'll soon be foisted upon them. Measuring shoe sizes one day, fun with tally marks the next, followed by each student deriving the commutative law from a pile of beans and twigs the next.

After building a solid foundation of number concepts, how numbers relate, place value and other number concepts, students will then use that knowledge to solve problems their own way and will be able to communicate their answers, Thompson said.

"As long as they can understand how they're solving it and can communicate how they're solving it, it's fine... This is what research is telling us we need to do."

Is it the research telling you to do it or the voices inside your head?

Who wants to start a Kumon center in Cincinnati?

6 comments:

Catherine Johnson said...

They are only going to be "asked to develop a deep understanding."

It really is amazing how the inevitable failure of these programs is signaled in the language of their supporters.

Ed says that if you listen people closely they'll tell you what they really think.

It's true.

"Students will be asked"

I'm going to start pointing out to Irvington parents & school personnel the "structuring absence" of words like "teach," "knowledge," "content," "subject matter discipline" (SERIOUSLY: WE NEED THE PHRASE SUBJECT MATTER DISCIPLINE TO APPEAR), "expertise," "mastery" and on and on and on.

Why aren't we hearing those words?

We aren't hearing them because the district isn't promising us any of these things.

They aren't even promising to try.

Instructivist said...

"Why aren't we hearing those words?"

It all sounds Orwellian.

In Newspeak words disappeared to make certain thoughts impossible. I have the feeling that educationists want to rid the consciousness of notions like "teach," "knowledge," "content," "subject matter discipline" ..."expertise," "mastery" etc. and replace them with educationist fog.

The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis comes to mind. It theorizes on how language influences thinking.

Anonymous said...

i say be grateful.
whatever words *do* get used
are sure to become meaningless
(like "critical thinking"
or "balanced" or what have you ...).

Instructivist said...

"Students will be asked to develop a deep understanding of number concepts and how numbers relate, so they can better understand how to solve problems, why they're solving the problem and be able to find their own method to reach the solution, Thompson said."

I got news for this hallucinator. They ain't gonna develop nothing. Without foundational knowledge and skills they won't have a clue of anything.

Instructivist said...

"i say be grateful.
whatever words *do* get used
are sure to become meaningless
(like "critical thinking"
or "balanced" or what have you ...)."

You've got a point there. Educationists use a two-pronged approach: Either send nettlesome terms down the memory hole, or neutralize terms and render them meaningless. This was done with "standards". Now almost everyone, particularly journalists, parrots the "standards-based" line without recognizing that they are pseudo-standards.

Catherine Johnson said...

Educationists use a two-pronged approach: Either send nettlesome terms down the memory hole, or neutralize terms and render them meaningless.

I love it!