They've thought of everything including a PowerPoint presentation for parents.
If you download it, please view it in "notes" view because they have extensive commentary in the notes section that is worth the price of admission. For example, on the first slide they come up with some interesting factoids such as "40% of adults hated math in school" and "84% of middle schoolers would rather do “anything” other than math homework". For those of us who may be critical thinkers and actually question such statements and where they were derived, the Wright Group is thinking of YOU. If you look at the "notes" page for this slide you will see that they give references and even explain what they mean:
Some of us love math. Many of us just hate it. According to an AP-AOL News poll of 1,000 adults, almost four in 10 of those surveyed said they hated math in school. That's twice as many as felt that strongly about any other school subject. And the dislike of math often trickles down to our children. A survey by Raytheon Co. found the vast majority of middle-school students would rather eat their vegetables, take out the garbage, clean their rooms or go to the dentist than study math. In fact, about 84 percent of students between the ages of 11 and 13 said they would rather do ``anything'' other than math homework, the survey showed. But, students CAN learn to love and appreciate math! To achieve this, the University of Chicago discovered that you have to teach math in a different way from they way most of us were taught.
My gosh, you just can't refute verifiable data like that! I wonder what the stats would look like in other nations. Well, of course, we can't count other nations because of cultural differences and norms and stuff like that. Plus foreigners are way different than us. 84% of students between 11 and 13 would rather do anything than math homework. How about history homework, or English? Or going to school in general? And of course the survey probably excluded those students in schools using EM; these people are not sloppy in their research. Well, why bother with these picky details when the conclusion is so obvious! Math has to be taught differently than from how WE were taught. And we all know how we were taught. With direct instruction, desks in a row, teacher in the front, and we actually had textbooks and those textbooks actually had real math in it. And everyone unanimously agrees that this approach simply does NOT work. Never mind about Project Follow Through. Alan Schoenfield quite effectively addressed that in his paper "The Math Wars":
The 1999 Frameworks are part of California's standards for math. And of course we all know how bad they are. I'm so grateful to Shoenfeld for clarifying Carnine's conflict of interest. He doesn't mention all the other people on the project, I notice. Not to mention that Everyday Math's research base has lots of stuff by William Carrol who's on U of Chicago's payroll and I think there's some stuff by Andy Isaacs too. But that's different. Those guys know what they're talking about."Carnine advocates direct instruction, and he is an author of two direct instruction programs currently being marketed in California: DISTAR and Connecting Math Concepts, produced by Science Research Associates (SRA)/McGraw-Hill. Thus, Carnine stood to profit financially from a state board endorsement of direct instruction. That would appear to be a conflict of interest, but the state board proceeded in any case—with Carnine being the sole purveyor of research on effective instruction to the board. Not to put too fine a point on it, the report was shoddy at best. The methodology was questionable, so much so that the American Educational Research Association’s Special Interest Group for Research in Mathematics Education, a collection of specialists in the area, wrote a public letter to the state board disputing Carnine’s methods. Summaries of many of the papers reviewed were inaccurate, and some of the report’s conclusions were not clearly related to the research summary. Nonetheless, Carnine’s report went on to serve as the basis for the section on instructional strategies in the board-approved 1999 Frameworks."
Let's go on in the fabulous PowerPoint. The next slide "Everyday Mathematics in the classroom" also has some interesting notes in the "notes" view:
"The researchers [oh, that would be William Carrol and Andy Isaacs I betcha. Maybe Fenema too. No Kamii, though. These guys are picky!] found that children learn math best through hands-on activities that build on their interests and connect to their experiences. Young children can grasp math concepts traditionally saved for older students (for example, algebra) when concepts are explored with concrete materials and pictures. All this is so important because these children will live in a world where careers require the ability to access, evaluate, and use information to solve problems. Rote memorization and basic arithmetic computation) are not enough. "
I'm glad they said what they did about rote memorization and basic computation not being enough. We all know that that's what ALL textbooks ever did. There were never any explanations about how things worked, no explanations about place value, no explanations about how the algorithm for two digit multiplication worked. And of course, Everyday Math doesn't require any memorization. Except for the lattice method. And the trade first method. And partial products. And partial quotients. But that's different. Those alternatives allow the students to see how everything works. Just ask a student in a class that uses EM to explain how these algorithms work. You'll really be surprised!
Well, you can explore the rest on your own. And I'm sure you'll now give the school administrators and Boards of Education the kudos they deserve for exercising their finely honed critical thinking skills in making their purchasing decisions.
16 comments:
I'm interested to see how long it takes for my child's school to pass this gem along. Maybe it will pop up at the next PTO meeting if not in a note dragged home in the backpack.
It might take awhile, judging from past experience. They didn't even know there was a new edition until I asked about it last school year, of course, they didn't know about the Focal Points either. Go figure.
When I received the press release in my email this a.m., I considered forwarding it. I quickly reconsidered choosing to see how long it takes the school to get the message out.
"The researchers [...] found that children learn math best through hands-on activities that build on their interests and connect to their experiences."
My son didn't see many of those hands-on activities because the teachers were always in a mad rush to either get through the (mile wide and inch deep) material or remediate the students who didn't master the material from previous years.
What my son had were teachers who explained things very little and had them do tear-out worksheets in class and at home. The home assignments usually had 10 or less problems to do and the kids self-corrected them in class. When I asked the teacher why there were so few practice problems, she said: "That's the idea". No drill-and-kill, I guess.
I just got done with a long thread at MathNotations with a teacher who doesn't know EM, but can't really believe that there are fundamental issues. Her conclusion? It must be an implementation problem.
As I said before, schools can pick curricula based on whatever ideas pop into their heads, but they require others to provide proof that it is fundamentally flawed (not just its implementation) to make a change. That won't happen.
There are always excuses. One of the best is the comment: "We think it works best for our kids." This is what the curriculum head at my son's old school told me when I compared EM with Singapore Math.
She didn't argue that EM was a better or stronger curriculum. What she was really saying was that "her" kids would do better with a math curriculum that set lower expectations; That set lower levels of mastery (hard work).
You can always trade content and expectations for something else, but they haven't found a way to magically make less into more. They might tell you that it's more, but this is only because they've redefined math. It's not really more. It's something else. As Prof. Steen said in his MathNotations interview, K-12 math teachers get to define math, not college professors.
This is all about academic turf. K-12 educators get to define math and standards based on opinion and then require proof from everyone else for change. Parents, mathematicians, engineers, and scientists have been complaining for years and years, and they are not even going to allow choice.
This is not about balance or middle ground. We are talking about a fundamental diffference in what constitutes a proper math education. They have redefined math, and balance is not going to solve that problem. Schools have to provide a choice of math curricula in K-8.
Choice happens for most schools in grades 7-12 (or at least 9-12), but K-6 educators can't seem to let go of the conceit of their opinions.
[In fact, about 84 percent of students between the ages of 11 and 13 said they would rather do ``anything'' other than math homework, the survey showed.]
I wonder whether these presumably non-sloppy researchers specified what kind of math and type of instruction these 84 percent were exposed to? Could it have been fuzzy math?
I'd like to see a study of attitudes of students fed voodoo math exclusively. I guess even a higher percentage of students "would rather eat their vegetables, take out the garbage, clean their rooms or go to the dentist..."
Why don't we see those studies? I know from my own experience that students fed CMP hated it.
And subtly, the objective of math education is shifted from one of competency to one of "love."
The percentage of adults who "love" math might change drastically if they asked "How many hours of your free time did you spend last week (outside of any class assignment) studying a math problem just for the fun of it."
M., our daughter was in Algebra last year and on more than one occasion, she commented that she liked Algebra homework. These comments were made while she was doing her Algebra homework.
I should put that in a context, for M would readily, given the choice, watch TV, play Gameboy, or whatever. And, she's not a math brain or a math geek (whatever that is). But she does have a math aptitude (at least in my humble opinion). And, thanks to Kumon and several effective teachers along the way, she had reached the point where she didn't see Algebra as torture.
On one such occasion, I asked her what it was about Algebra that she liked, and she responded that she like the satisfaction of solving the problems.
I should also hasten to add that her Algebra teacher seemed to be very good at explaining concepts, and at least from my vantage point, certainly seemed interested in making sure that her students learned the material.
M also does much, much better with direct, effective, coherent instruction. Go figure. She gets frustrated when she doesn't know how to do something, which is sometimes necessary, of course, in order to grow and develop. However, it's the degree of frustration that is relative, I suppose. Being challenged, incrementally, to see and take that next step is one thing; having to teach yourself material that is over your head is entirely different.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that with effective, logical and coherent instruction, motivated kids might not mind doing the homework.
Shouldn't an attorney general be able to arrest these folks for false advertising, deceptive marketing or something.
This is really getting ridiculous and I don't know what is worse - the fact that educational adminstrators say these things or the bulk of parents BLINDLY, MINDLESSLY, UNQUESTIONINGLY (is that even a word?) accept the findings!
In Ridgewood today, I got an email stating that at back to school night at one of the TERC schools in Ridgewood the principal told the parents the state (that would be NJ) dictates we use a standards based curriculum.
Is that passing the buck or what.
And slimy. Yes our state guidelines (GUIDELINES NOT LAW) are standards-based. That's what NJ gets for having Joseph Rosenstein as its mathematician for its standards.
So how does that explain Addison Wesley (not supplementing TERC) at Willard Elementary School in Ridgewood NJ.
So how does that expalin Singapore Math in South River NJ?
So how does that explain Houghton Mifflin in Woodcliff Lake NJ?
To quote from the Tom Hanks movie, Forest Gump
"LIfe is like a box of chocolates ..."
and in Ridgewood, if math is a piece of chocolate, Travell and Orchard just picked out a bad piece from the chocolate box.
K-12 educators get to define math and standards based on opinion and then require proof from everyone else for change.
Beautiful.
However, the idea that there is choice in 6-12, or even 9-12, is, I think, false.
It is false here, at least, and I'm not hearing differently from parents in other Westchester districts.
We have no choice, and the struggle to protect the one under-subscribed "accelerated" math course we do have is ongoing.
enhance the experience
lollllll
enhance is a HUGE edu-word these days, I find
enhance is a HUGE edu-word these days, I find
My original wording was "in case you wish to induce vomiting" but I thought that might offend someone. Like Skip Fennell, who I know reads this blog daily.
On one such occasion, I asked her what it was about Algebra that she liked, and she responded that she like the satisfaction of solving the problems.
I was, and am, the same way. Kids like to be able to do things. My daughter is not fond of math, but once she gets in a rhythm of doing something (like your daughter), she tends to like it. I didn't need "relevance" and I don't think most kids do. They just like to be able to succeed.
They just like to be able to succeed.
This is why my kids hate EM. Like a recipe with too many ingredients that don't really go together (like lemon juice and chocolate) and haphazard directions that don't make any sense, the end result is usually less than satisfying. "Yuck" about sums it up nicely.
ok, I am going to have to save the rest of this tomorrow, because....I have to preserve my strength, what's left of it
also, i'm going to be sleeping in the same room with two dogs who've been skunked and that's pretty much all the pain I can bear for the evening
I'd like to see a study of attitudes of students fed voodoo math exclusively.
YES!!!!!!!
YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!
it's gonna be fun when these kids get old enough to talk about the miserable freaking experience they had being forced to skip count to a billion
Great post, Barry! This takes me back to a USA Today article last year on the relationship between "math happiness" and "math success" in middle schoolers. "Happier" students, in the aggregate, were worse mathematicians than their colleagues who said they didn't enjoy math. Hmmm..... (here's the link to the article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-10-17-math-children_x.htm
Cheryl vT in Singapore
Post a Comment