Posts
The state math tests are given next week, and the TIMES has a story on it.
They've titled it, "An 8th Grade Test, 180 Degrees from Easy."
That is so wrong.
This test is not 180 degrees from easy.
This test is 180 degrees from easy. (pdf file)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I wonder what topics or areas in arithmetic they are sacrificing to teach algebraic manipulations so early?
The Singapore books do not go into what passes for data analysis and probability. I have the Singapore books and they are carefully structured and sequenced. Students have a very good grounding in fractions, adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing, decimals, percents, ratios, some principles of geometry, and are given very good problem solving techniques using a device known as "bar modeling" which serves as a stalking horse to algebra. Algebraic manipulations are given in the sixth grade, but in the book I have they do not extend it to solving equations. Singapore teaches each topic area to mastery and then builds upon it. I've used it with my daughter and a friend of hers and had very good results. Others on this list have had similar experiences.
Oh, and the material is presented in a straightforward manner, with "discovery" done in a carefully guided manner, which does not entail that they solve problems without prior knowledge.
I was struggling, last night, trying to do the Singapore 5th grade problems.
I hope that's because I'm still sick as a dog.... (MUST...GET...ANTIBIOTICS)
In any case, putting those two tests side-by-side, the end-of-5th grade Singapore test & the end-of-8th grade NY test, it's hard to say that our kids are 3 years behind.
The problems on the 5th grade test are of a different order of magnitude in difficulty from the 8th grade problems.
I look at this and I despair.
Of course, that's because I need antibiotics.
I fixed the broken link to the not-easy test.
"The Singapore books do not go into what passes for data analysis and probability."
That would raise immediate concerns of "alignment". If SM were used the kiddies couldn't solve a probability problem like the following from the Illinois ISAT for seventh grade:
Mike has only 2 red apples and
3 green apples in a bowl. Without
looking he chooses an apple and
gives it to his sister. Then he
chooses an apple for himself.
What is the probability that
he and his sister will each get
a red apple?
The trouble is, having been raised on CMP they can't solve it either, as I am discovering at my school. But I haven't heard the "alignment" cry. How CMP can be aligned at all mystifies me, since there is no telling where "discovery" will lead to. Luckily, I discovered the answer to the probability problem. At least, I think I did.
I reasoned that in the first draw, the chances are 2/5 of picking red. The chances drop to 1/4 for the second pick. Doing fraction multiplication yields 2/20 or 1/10. Converted to percents I get 10%.
I am still confused about terminology and don't know if chances and and odds can be used interchangeably. I must go on another discovery journey.
One thing that occurs to me when hearing praise of discovery is that a lot of academic knowledge and skills has to do with conventions. Conventions are useful but don't lend themselves to discovery by definition. I don't hear that point being addressed by disocvery enthusiasts. Terminology itself is a convention. Kiddies are expected to write extended responses in math. Being properly verbal means having internalized conventional language (terminology). That won't happen magically from discovery. It must be taught!
"I hope that's because I'm still sick as a dog.... (MUST...GET...ANTIBIOTICS)"
What's afflicting you? It sounds awful. I have been hit with a nasty flu strain.
I hope you didn't go viral, 'cause then antibiotics won't help.
The Singapore books do not go into what passes for data analysis and probability." That would raise immediate concerns of "alignment". If SM were used the kiddies couldn't solve a probability problem
No problema. Singapore's lack of stat and probability can be easily supplemented to allow kids to show proficiency in the junk math that is called probability. It ain't hard. But schools spend an inordinate amount of time having kids draw graphs, make spinners, answer "what ifs", etc.
My "singapore" son (the one that's never used an American math program) has been able to answer the probability questions on tests so far. (He's in fifth) They don't require an "n choose k" sort of solution on TAKS. He just noodles his way through the exam item and uses the math that he already knows (fractions, percentage) to come up with the correct answer.
Probability, I think, is covered in NEM 3 which corresponds to ninth grade. In the end they do get it.
I am willing to sacrifice topics for depth. To cover the algebraic manipulations on that NY exam I would have to cut something out of the Singapore series that I am using. And I only imagine that NY must have made the same decision. I'm wondering what they got rid of to make room to teach those manipulations. For example, maybe they only cover percent in a very superficial way.
I think I just screwed up the difference between combinatorics and probability. That's probably something to ponder.
"I am willing to sacrifice topics for depth."
I have heard a lot of support for this approach. But I am worried. Educationists tend to make a mess out of every good idea. If this idea is picked up by educationists, most likely you'll end up with neither topics nor depth.
"Educationists tend to make a mess out of every good idea. "
Ayup. Just got my copy of one of the original SMSG-based algebra books, set theory, proofs, and all.
Isn't it in Barry's Singapore article about how two of the schools here in the US that tried to implement Singapore couldn't implement it very well? There should be some sort of Murphy's law of math education.
But schools spend an inordinate amount of time having kids draw graphs, make spinners, answer "what ifs", etc.
Bar graphs and spinners are Christopher's ONE area of absolute procedural "fluency," as the folks like to say.
I've been death-marching him through the test prep book (that's another story) and of course we're running short of time, so I want him to do the lessons on real things, like area and volume, and he keeps choosing to do the lessons on bar graphs.
Every day I ask him, "What lesson did you do?" and every day I hear "bar graphs."
Today he did circle graphs AGAIN.
I'm in favor of circle graphs (we already talked about that) but the fact is: I already gave him a lot of practice on circle graphs.
HE NEEDS TO DO THE FRIGGING GEOMETRY LESSONS.
I have heard a lot of support for this approach. But I am worried. Educationists tend to make a mess out of every good idea. If this idea is picked up by educationists, most likely you'll end up with neither topics nor depth.
oh absolutely
absolutely
I'm way ahead of you on that one!
I made this prediction two years ago
Think about it
As soon as you whittle the number of topics down to TEN per school year you can do non-stop discovery
You won't even have to spend a month using your test prep book in the run-up to the state test
I had Christopher do these problems today.
At least he could do them, and he could do them quickly and proficiently.
Naturally he missed the one on the 20% discount.
Shoot me.
Still, he didn't miss it by a mile (exactly).
He multiplied $16 by .2 and thought that was the answer.
That allowed me to say to him, "So if you walk into a store and you see something that costs $16 and the sign says 20% off, does it instantly spring to mind that the prise is going to be 3 bucks?"
answer: no
Then we spent some time going over the fact that the simplest way to solve this problem -- something I myself did not know until two years ago -- is simply to take .8 x $16.
Or, alternatively, .1 x $16 and then double that (I'm sure he hasn't gotten this yet...)
He's not a million miles away from this.
Which is good, seeing as how he's in SEVENTH GRADE and HE'S IN ACCELERATED MATH.
"...is simply to take .8 x $16."
Or if you add taxes to the price of something multiply by one plus the tax. If a gadget costs $3.50 and the tax is 15%, multiply the price times 1.15 to eliminate the addition step.
Oh I get it. This is an 8th grade test. For a while there I was impressed with it as a 6th grade test. I skipped right over that tiny detail when I saw the link to the Sg 6th grade placement test. Duh. Yeah, in Sg 8th they are already done with algebra I...and that's in the "O-level" math.
I had not noticed the use of the word “educationists” before. After looking it up, I learned it is a real word. Showing my ignorance, I guess.
I wonder if my school would be offended if I called them educationists? But, it’s better than calling them “educationistas”. Hmm . . .
"I had not noticed the use of the word “educationists” before. After looking it up, I learned it is a real word. Showing my ignorance, I guess."
The word exists, but keep in mind that I use it as a term of art. For one thing, I can't bring myself to utter the word "educator". There is something about that word that repels me. Probably because educators are often infused with ed school ideology and don't do a lot of educating. Ed school ideology is antithetical to education.
Educationist then becomes the somewhat disparaging term taking the place of educator. It's my shorthand designation for "educators" who subscribe to all the ed school mumbo-jumbo, theories, beliefs, fads and practices that I consider inimical to real education.
For example, if an "educator" says or believes the following, he would qualify as an educationist:
(with thanks to Prof. Plum and his Fads and Flapdoodle vs. Serious Instruction http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/flapdoodle.doc
“Be guided by the following ideas: child-centered and student-centered, holistic, natural, authentic, learning styles, multiple intelligence, brain-based instruction, developmentally appropriate practices, best practices, etc.”
“You can’t transmit knowledge. Students must construct knowledge. Therefore, most learning and instruction should be in the form of inquiry and discovery.”
“You should develop your own materials. You should NOT use commercial materials because (1) one size does NOT fit all; and (2) commercial materials rob you of creativity.”
Post a Comment