kitchen table math, the sequel: RPS Tactics

Thursday, May 10, 2007

RPS Tactics

Nowthatshockey has posted a video on YouTube that shows typical school board behavior with respect to math programs that they want installed despite parent protests.

Posted by at

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

As KTM's resident Math-Phobe, I think it's important to realize how the comment about "thinking" vs. learning boring "traditional" algorithms (and to think you can learn them in one day! Who knew?!) appeals to those who are weak in math.

I think people who are weak in math carry a bit of baggage from the days when they "hit the wall."
This is important for you math people to know when dealing with these types.

If I hadn't come here for the last couple of years (and witnessed the success of re-teaching one of my sons with one of those boring traditional texts), I might have been one of those goofs leading the charge.

I'm embarrassed to say.

May 10, 2007 at 5:55 AM
Barry Garelick said...

Susan S raises an excellent point. Even those who weren't math phobic, but went into fields that didn't make use of their math, may be taken in by the fuzzy arguments. They may say "Wow, things have changed for the better since I went to school" and not question it. It all sounds good when you first hear it. That's the danger.

May 10, 2007 at 6:08 AM
Anonymous said...

I was weak in math as a child, but I appreciate traditional math as much as anyone. I could never have learned math using Everyday Math (my children's curriculum). It is so deeply confusing to anyone who doesn't have a "math brain."

I didn't like all the drill and practice growing up, but now, as an adult, I am competent in "everyday" math. Thank goodness they didn't use fuzzy math when I was a kid.

May 10, 2007 at 7:27 AM
Barry Garelick said...

It is so deeply confusing to anyone who doesn't have a "math brain."

It is also deeply confusing to those who may have an affinity for math. I've met kids who were extremely confused by the "menu" of algorithms forced upon them (and given the name "student invented"). One very bright girl confided to me that she "must not be very good in math." Good going, Everyday Math!

May 10, 2007 at 8:10 AM
harriska2 said...

Mr. Hockey Lover has posted several others. I put them in a list:

http://kathyandcalvin.com/node/746

May 10, 2007 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...

Susan said "I think it's important to realize how the comment about "thinking" vs. learning boring "traditional" algorithms (and to think you can learn them in one day! Who knew?!) appeals to those who are weak in math.

I think people who are weak in math carry a bit of baggage from the days when they "hit the wall."

Oh, this is so true. Back in the 80's I created a Continuing Ed course for a college in the Hudson Valley called "Recovery from Math Anxiety."

A course in deep math thinking would have appealed to my students in that class. I should have done more deep thinking with them than I did.

I still think a GOOD course in deep math thinking really would help. Deep math thinking is just good teaching.

But TERC is such a wild animal. Not at all what they would have needed.

May 10, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...

Also practice.

One of the common threads of people who are bad at math is their ability to avoid it all costs.

When I was forced to do it every day to get through a blasted college algebra course, I started making A's, shocking my tutor almost as much as me. I remember thinking, "Oh, I don't have a learning disability, I just never actually practiced." It was a bit of a revelation.

Also, the gaps. The gaps can go back to grade school and they just build until you finally quit altogether or flunk.

I was amazed at how many gaps in knowledge I had when I sat down with a good tutor, but I really didn't know what I didn't know.

I often felt too stupid to ask for help in case I didn't understand the explanation. I would die before I would let them find out how much I didn't know.

May 10, 2007 at 11:15 AM
SteveH said...

I watched it. It was very painful. My interactions with teachers flashed in my head. The part that bothered me the most was the comment from the professor asking schools not to send kids who only want to plug numbers into formulas, or some such thing.

I can't stand it. Everyone is discussing generalities and nobody is getting down to details. The forum or process does not allow parents to get down to details. It's way too easy to talk about understanding and thinking without defining exactly what they mean.

You need to define where you are going and compare textbooks and curricula side-by-side, page-by-page, if necessary. You have to look at the required skills and mastery level that has to be achieved at each grade.

The additional problem is that these curricula are just bad at what the purport to do. They don't teach understanding. EM might show a picture of how to divide 3/4 of a pie into 1/8th pieces grphically, but they think that the mathematical explanation of dividing fractions with invert and multiply is too much understanding for the kids.

On top of this lack of mathematical understanding, they don't expect mastery of ANY basic algorithms at any particular point in time because the kids will see the material again. The standard response from many schools is that (of course) EM is supplemented with practice. This is anti-EM. The basic premise of EM is that mastery will take care of itself over the long run because of spiraling. If you add in mastery, then what happens at the next turn of the spiral? You're better off with a curriculum that is designed around mastery of basic skills.

These curricula don't appeal to parents. What appeals to parents is all of the blather coming out of the mouths of educators. Some of the parents I talk to just parrot back what the educators are saying. They like the idea of balance. Why would anyone expect that educators could be fundamentally wrong.

The question is how much the educators believe their own blather. My opinion is that with their lack of mathematical knowledge, they have no basis for commenting on understanding. They just run on and on with the same vague platitudes. That's all they have.

May 10, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Barry Garelick said...

The part that bothered me the most was the comment from the professor asking schools not to send kids who only want to plug numbers into formulas, or some such thing.

Actually, it was a teacher who had visited RPI and was reporting on what a professor had told her. So we never hear from the professor at all--just her accounting of a conversation we are expected to believe is reproduced accurately.

May 10, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...

"Please stop having them learn rules and algorithms."

(Because, you know, math isn't governed by rules.)

Is it clear that she was talking to someone in the MATH department and not the math ED department? Maybe she doesn't know the difference.

May 10, 2007 at 2:49 PM
BeckyC said...

Actually, it was a teacher who had visited RPI and was reporting on what a professor had told her. So we never hear from the professor at all--just her accounting of a conversation we are expected to believe is reproduced accurately.

Yeah, she's got these stone tablets that say "thou shalt not teach rules" or rather, the tablets said that but nobody can read them now because she threw them down and broke them when she got mad at parents for partying with the golden calf.

The parents didn't know what she was doing. The parents thought she was never coming back from Mount Rensselaer. The parents thought she was dead.

It had been a long day.

May 10, 2007 at 5:51 PM
LynnG said...

LOL

When does pedagogy become theology?

When adherents point to "truths" that we aren't allowed to question.

The unidentified RPI professor will be thrilled to know that my son's science and engineering magnet high school spends very little time worrying about those nettlesome algorithms, rules, and processes.

Today he is going to Six Flags to ride the rollercoasters and "learn" about physics.

He has a big project coming up in engineering where he has to build a car out of wood, dowels, string, and rubber bands.

He got an A on his geometry project where he cut and paste a beautiful model home out of paper, tape and glue (and no geometry, other than the roof was sort of triangular).

He has built bridges out of paperclips and popsicle sticks.

He has learned nothing about force, load distribution, or building codes. He has never written a formal geometric proof.

He has replaced the batteries in his graphing calculator almost every week (he has never had a geometry assignment that didn't encourage using the calculator).

We are so very done with this math and science magnet high school.

May 11, 2007 at 7:43 AM
LynnG said...

One last thing, last week my son at the engineering high school took a quiz on where students from this innercity magnet school might attend college to pursue science and engineering degrees.

RPI was not on the list. Neither was MIT. The school is pushing only CT schools, the Univ. of Hartford, Quinnipiac College, UConn . . .

What is the deal? Why not mention the RPI and MITs of the world? Why not encourage these kids to shoot for the moon? These are largely black and latino inner city kids, if they had strong academics they'd really have a shot at aid from a top engineering/science school wouldn't they?

Talk about your soft bigotry of low expectations.

Unfortunately, given the incredibly low caliber of the curriculum, I fear most of the top A students will be woefully unprepared for a RPI or MIT.

May 11, 2007 at 7:50 AM
Anonymous said...

The RPI professor was probably sick of seeing students trying to solve problems by guessing which formula to use and then plugging in numbers to get an answer. I know people who were explicity taught physics this way in high school and had lists of formulas to use. Unfortunately, the solution to his plea, from the standpoint of the educator, is to remove the teaching of formulas at all. More Understanding, More Conceptualization Dammit!

May 11, 2007 at 9:03 AM
SteveH said...

"... given the incredibly low caliber of the curriculum, I fear most of the top A students will be woefully unprepared for a RPI or MIT."

But perhaps they will be better off than without the magnet school. Unfortunately, better doesn't mean good enough for engineering college. Educators don't like absolute measures. It really is the soft bigotry of low expectations. They don't think that minorities are smart enough to handle the material. They're just happy to get them up one rung of the economic ladder. NCLB is not much help. It institutionalizes low expectations. It's better than before, but better becomes the best they can do.


"He has built bridges out of paperclips and popsicle sticks."

It's sad when popsicle stick bridges are more important than things like beam theory, shear force, and bending moment.

Speaking of which, One of the first courses in engineering school is a course in statics and dynamics - free body diagrams, stress, strain, kinetics; that sort of thing. You have to be able to calculate the forces in each member of a truss bridge. When engineering students build popsicle stick bridges, they are calculating the forces and optimizing the structure for the expected load. When high school or lower school students do it, they are just playing. I've done this project with my son. The only thing he learned was the power of laminated wood - because I taught it to him.

I just happen to have my old textbook on my shelf: "Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Statics and Dynamics". You learn all about vectors and their components (dot products, cross products, etc.), and you better know your trig. Then comes forces, moments, and free body disgrams. You better be good as solving systems of equations.

Then comes spring and friction forces, and support types; cantilever, pin, rollers, slots, universal joints, etc. Next comes areas, centroids, and centers of gravity. These aren't always simple shapes, so you better brush up on your integration. What about distributed loads on beams? Now we are getting into shear and bending moment diagrams - more integration and trig.

We haven't even gotten to dynamics yet. You have to be good in algebra, trig, and calculus. They don't take time in these courses to review math. If you can't do the math, you will flunk out.

The question is how many of these magnet students make it through engineering even at places like UConn? This is where I started in engineering before I transferred to U. of Michigan. Even at UConn you have to have more knowledge than popsicle stick bridges and Six Flags rides.

May 11, 2007 at 10:09 AM
LynnG said...

All very good points, Steve. My spouse was a mechanical engineer at UConn and is similarly appalled at what is passing for engineering at the magnet school.

Yes, it is one step up for kids whose only alternative is the Hartford Public Schools. But it isn't even near the level of a mediocre suburban school.

The magnet is merely filling in that gap, not raising the bar.

May 11, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Catherine Johnson said...

I love the ending!

They got an expert from NYC public schools!

May 12, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Catherine Johnson said...

Well I guess that settles it, then.

May 12, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Catherine Johnson said...

I watched it. It was very painful. My interactions with teachers flashed in my head. The part that bothered me the most was the comment from the professor asking schools not to send kids who only want to plug numbers into formulas, or some such thing.

We're lucky in that we have no one in our district this articulate. They all sound like they don't know what they're talking about.

May 12, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Catherine Johnson said...

I know people who were explicity taught physics this way in high school and had lists of formulas to use. Unfortunately, the solution to his plea, from the standpoint of the educator, is to remove the teaching of formulas at all. More Understanding, More Conceptualization Dammit!

This is where we all get clobbered.

Kids get to college not knowing how to "think," meaning in the humanities not knowing how to create an argument, support it with evidence, organize ones points, etc.

Any college professor will tell you this, including Ed. He says his grad students don't know how to write a paper that is an argument, as opposed to a summary (I think that's how he puts it).

Our K-12 educators, the people who've sent kids off to college having no idea how to write a paper with a thesis, conclude from all this that they can send kids off to college also not knowing any facts.

May 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Catherine Johnson said...

Ed's theme these days is: "You have to have kids in the public schools to know how bad it is."

May 12, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Catherine Johnson said...

Everyone is discussing generalities and nobody is getting down to details. The forum or process does not allow parents to get down to details. It's way too easy to talk about understanding and thinking without defining exactly what they mean.

You need to define where you are going and compare textbooks and curricula side-by-side, page-by-page, if necessary. You have to look at the required skills and mastery level that has to be achieved at each grade.

Our new assistant superintendent in charge of curriculum is apparently going to start giving parents a copy of the scope and sequence.

May 12, 2007 at 12:44 PM
harriska2 said...

"Any college professor will tell you this, including Ed. He says his grad students don't know how to write a paper that is an argument, as opposed to a summary (I think that's how he puts it)."

I wonder if that is because they haven't been taught reasoning, nor proper writing.

My son is in an SRA product called Reasoning and Writing and it's cool because, dah, dah, it teaches both! He actually likes it but boy he sure has to write a lot, everyday.

May 12, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)