Posts
Okay, so maybe this isn't the only reason, or even the best reason, for disliking reform math, but I think this graphic is a really good reason to hate it.This graphic appeared along with a New York Times article about the recent turmoil in Ridgewood, New Jersey.
The caption notes that this was a 3rd grade assignment and the correct answer is 2450 (not 2550).
I see this assignment as a huge missed opportunity. Sure a kid could get the right answer by drawing 25 boxes (instead of 26) and skip counting her way to the right answer.
But if she only had some basic 3rd skills in multiplication and subtraction, this type of assignment could lead to a fantastic lesson on order of operations, something most kids struggle with. Instead, it is a drawing and counting assignment.
I just can't see how this leads to "conceptual understanding" or "higher order thinking skills." The child is counting and drawing and completely missing the conceptual aspect -- when do you multiply, when do you subtract, how do you know when to use each operation?
11 comments:
I am just thrilled that the NYT picked this up, and that graphic is priceless!
I think the NYT did a better job of covering the parents' objections to TERC than we usually get. The article states,
"The parents who oppose reform math say it is confusing, moves too slowly and allows students to get by without mastering basic skills, partly because they can rely on calculators. 'It's like math for english majors,' said Frances Edwards, a public relations consultant. 'It was never equations. It was patterns, drawing circles, writing down numbers and explaining what you did.'"
That's a pretty good take on the concerns. It's certainly an improvement on what we usually get from the NYT -- parents object because it is different from what they learned in school.
“You have to question how much further they’d be willing to go to advance their cause,” Mark Bombace, the school board president, said in an interview. “And that is very disturbing to someone who has spent his life trying to do the right thing for children.”
And the other side is NOT trying to do the right thing for children? If these parents cared only about their own kids, they would keep quiet, tutor their kids, and laugh all the way to the SAT test.
"...the parents flooded the Internet"
Boy, there are a lot of parents who apparently don't want to do the right thing for children.
“They want their children’s education to resemble their education because they are successful,” he explained. “They say, ‘It worked for me, why won’t it work for them?’ ”
Stupid or arrogant. They like to view the problem as what was done long ago versus what is done today, rather than Investigations versus Singapore Math. The real issue is low expectations versus high expectations.
“We’re trying to move this to a problem-solving process rather than having a fight or a battle,”
Why wasn't it a problem-solving process from the beginning? Could it be that the board didn't think there was a problem? Why did the battle begin in the first place?
Well, sure, it isn't terrific coverage. But its an incremental step in the right direction.
I guess I was just so happy that they called TERC confusing, slow moving, and lacking in basic skills that I kind of forgave them for forgetting that parents actually care about what's good for kids.
It'd be nice if they could make that point, too.
This is great, thanks so much.
Although I have no doubt that the graphic is typical, I wonder if it is for real. It seems awfully neat for a third grader....
I guess by the time one draws all those boxes they've forgotten their common sense. Or can't a third grader figure out that 25 times 100 is 2500 and if some paper clips are missing, the answer has to be less than 2500?
I'm WRITING MY BOOK today, but I DID find the homepage of the matehmatician quoted in the article.
Just you wait.
My sister says the kids are still coloring in her local high school.
Suburban California.
"...the parents flooded the Internet"
So that's what those tubes are for.
8-)
You people clearly don't appreciate creativity.
“They want their children’s education to resemble their education because they are successful,” he explained. “They say, ‘It worked for me, why won’t it work for them?’ ”
Actually, I'd like to know what's wrong with this argument. Lots of kids in my school (1970's) went on to math/science careers (including me), and I'd wager even those who didn't enter those careers have a better understanding of math than most kids in today's reform math programs.
If the criticism of the "old ways" stems from the observation that most math/science types of my generation were/are white men, my answer to that is that the problem was a lack of opportunity. It had nothing to do with curriculum or instructional methods. I was a girl who was given the opportunity, and I thrived with the traditional methods.
And by the way, there was plenty of "conceptual understanding" back then. I would like to know who started the myth that there wasn't.
A logical, sequential, comprehensive math curriculum that is available to all children will equalize the playing field. This is what educators should be striving to achieve.
Reform math pushes us in exactly the opposite direction. Only the most privileged children (whose parents spend the time, energy and money to reteach the subject) will be ready for the high tech careers of the future.
This was a homework assignment. Most of the children in the class solved it like this:
25 x 100 = 2500
2500-50 =2450
This student was not directed to solve this problem with pictures but he/she must be commended for the independent effort he/she made to solve the problem. The incorrect answer was not accepted by the teacher when the assignment was turned in. The child was asked to revisit the problem until the correct answer was found. Then, the algorithms above were demonstrated again by the teacher.
Post a Comment