That article hits it on the nose--if I retired today I would be bringing home more money than I am working full time.
I don't work for the money, or for the few extra dollars I will make by staying longer, I am working because I really love what I am doing. Most of us 55 year olds are staying for that same reason. We are leaving, not to get more money but to get away from a system that is abusing us and abusing children. Kids are being forced to learn things they don't understand, and will never understand or need. Classrooms are over crowded. There are no meaningful tutoring programs and the system keeps piling on more and more tests. Older teachers are being harrassed. The schools only want the young ones who are earning a much lower salary and will jump as high as any admin tells them too.
We are just tired of the BS. WE are tired of being fought every time we want to do something to help a kid. We might as well take the money and enjoy our lives.
This WAS an interesting article. However, there must be tremendous variability -- ours is considered an excellent plan, but I did the math and if I retired now I would have to live on 46% of my current income (doable if I moved to a trailer park or seniors' home -- but I'm not attracted to the former nor eligible for the latter). Even at max pension is 60% of previous income. The coup de grace is that one has to purchase one's own medical and dental plan, and there are no comparable ones available from any providers at any price. This isn't so much a consideration for actual seniors but it is if you're in your 50's. Correspondents from other large districts in the east and Midwest have similar stories.
Fighting the system is something that does definitely lose its appeal over time. Guerrilla instructivism is energy-draining. Can't agree more about the frustration of being confronted with one obstacle after another every time you want to actually teach or help a kid. However I do still get an iconoclastic rush out of defying authority and successfully teaching basic skills: the pedagogical equivalent to manning the lifeboats. One consolation is that if I get REALLY p.o.'d I only have to give 10 days' notice. I could get a pleasant job in a bookstore or something to stay afloat. Of a staff of more than 50, only one other teacher and I have more than 10 years experience, and I'm the only one with much expertise in instructional issues. There is definitely a generation gap in knowledge and skills, no fault of the newer folks. Most had no preparation at all in curriculum, behavior management, instructional design, teaching skills etc. Lots of philosophy instead. I don't dare contemplate what things will look like in another 10-15 years.
"However I do still get an iconoclastic rush out of defying authority and successfully teaching basic skills: the pedagogical equivalent to manning the lifeboats."
The very fact that such a sentence can be written by an experienced teacher shows the complete lunacy of the educationist enterprise (the system, the prevailing creed, etc.).
When you think it can't possibly get worse, it does. Just last week, I was testing average 7th and 8th graders in math in a Chicago public school. Not one student could do any operations with fractions, not even multiplication. All of them were brought up on constructivist programs and continue with CMP in the middle grades.
I wonder if cases like this are reflected in research on the effectiveness of fuzzy math.
Interesting. I'm a tier 1 teacher in my district as well. However NYC has got to be a tougher environment than ours so you deserve a better deal. I have no interest in "retiring" anyway (I am more on top of things, professionally speaking, than I have ever been) but sometimes the private sector starts looking good.
Unfortunately the low-SES kids who now have completely different life prospects because I knew how to accelerate their reading, writing and math skills do not have access to private providers. That gives me pause. Then I remember middle-class kids need good teaching too.... Meanwhile, I am motivated by results. The day I am finally prevented from getting results by being forced to implement undiluted fuzzy everything, Multiple Stupidities, differentiated ignorance and kootchy-coo baby-sitting, I will be out of there at warp speed.
Instructivist, last month I had a mirror experience to yours but with fifth graders. I assessed a whole cohort in math (only one was a special education student, and he was no worse than the rest), with similar results.
They scored well in understanding "concepts." Whoop-de-doo. But *none* could reliably do computation with regrouping, do mental computation of any sort, measure accurately, use a number line, name fractions, or do any operations with fractions or decimals. Surprisingly they could not even count money correctly!! They could not figure out elapsed time, nor read non-digital clocks.
What good is all this great "conceptual understanding" if you can't count coins under $3.00, measure the length of a board, find the perimeter of a triangle or determine whether to add or subtract to compare two numbers? The one thing most were good at was reading graphs -- pictographs, bar graphs and simple tables.
Some of these students were quite bright and had good reasoning ability but what they ALL lacked was knowledge of number facts, facility with algorithms, precise vocabulary (perpendicular, acute angle, numerator, range), an organized approach (if guessing didn't work they were stuck), in short MASTERY at any level. Like your students, all have had nothing but fuzzy blah-blah since entering school. Few to none can afford Kumon and most don't have computers at home or access to them, so even that kind of practice is not available to them.
A recent study of teacher competence in our district found that most teachers in 5-8 grade mathematics did not themselves show mastery of the subject at that level. I think we may have come full circle. The system is now being run by people who are its products, and many are quasi-literate and numerate, however bright and caring they may be. Also, the lack of any kind of intellectual rigor or scientific and statistical training in their preparation has left them vulnerable to every fad that comes down the pipeline.
That article hits it on the nose--if I retired today I would be bringing home more money than I am working full time.
Is that because you can collect pension and also take temporary positions as a .... I've forgotten the term. "Fill-in teacher" is what I mean, but I know there's a term for hiring a certified teacher to take a lengthy position.
The system is now being run by people who are its products, and many are quasi-literate and numerate, however bright and caring they may be.
Ed and I see a problem with constructivist administrators.
He was dealing with these people in the 1980s when he headed the CA history/social science project. I'll have to ask him more about exactly where they were at the time, and what they were doing.
He explained it one night, but I've forgotten the details... The jist was that they are now in charge.
the lack of any kind of intellectual rigor or scientific and statistical training in their preparation has left them vulnerable to every fad that comes down the pipeline.
oh, boy, you're telling me
death by data
it's not just school personnel; it's everyone
the new U.S. News Rankings put Irvington High School in the top 100 high schools in the country - we are in the "Gold" category.
I'm the only parent in town who has spoken publicly about the fact that not one black student passed the 8th grade state tests in 2006, and U.S. News has now turned me into a malcontent and a crank. We've been ranked -- using official numbers! -- so that's that.
We are now in the era of data without training. Schools everywhere are going to be using data, data, data. The administrator here who is in charge of our data collection/interpretation efforts actually told me she hasn't taken a math course in years and wouldn't be able to help my son with algebra.
She's great, btw, a serious person with the right goals. However, the fact that she would openly tell a parent that she doesn't know enough math to help a kid with algebra 1 tells you where we are. Our schools are now going to be "data-driven"; we're to have data-driven decision making."
This will all be done by people who don't know math and can't do math.
"However I do still get an iconoclastic rush out of defying authority and successfully teaching basic skills: the pedagogical equivalent to manning the lifeboats."
The very fact that such a sentence can be written by an experienced teacher shows the complete lunacy of the educationist enterprise (the system, the prevailing creed, etc.).
educationist enterprise
I like that.
I agree: the fact that such a sentence can be written tells you everything you need to know.
There's a computer science/math teacher in the h.s. I'm extremely keen on (C. has him now for "math lab.")
He used to teach in NYC, and he's a results person.
A friend told me that he pitched himself to parents at some transition to high school event. He was trying to get people to sign up for AP Computer Science, I think, by telling them how high his pass rate on the test was. (May have been 95%....??)
My friend was skeptical; she was thinking he gets the cream of the crop or this, that, and the other. She's a statistician, so she's naturally skeptical of people citing data.
My attitude is: forget the confounding factors; this is a teacher who is pitching himself to PARENTS as a person who can get results!
That's all I need to know (and I'd bet big money I'm right on this).
If C. attends high school here he'll be taking any course he can from this guy.
They scored well in understanding "concepts." Whoop-de-doo. But *none* could reliably do computation with regrouping, do mental computation of any sort, measure accurately, use a number line, name fractions, or do any operations with fractions or decimals. Surprisingly they could not even count money correctly!! They could not figure out elapsed time, nor read non-digital clocks.
How does conceptual understanding show itself in these circumstances?
I'm always confused by the idea of conceptual understanding without mastery.
It does seem that you can have some degree of conceptual understanding of a subject from a distance....but there are limits.
How does conceptual understanding show itself in these circumstances?
The best way to illuminate my point would be to contrast my findings with what might have occurred in "the old days." Time was -- the 50's? 60's? when you might often find students who could proficiently, or at least adequately, perform basic operations -- including, in many cases, operations with fractions and decimals -- but would have been at a loss to explain what they were doing, or why they were (for instance) regrouping in subtraction, or inverting fractions to divide them. It was not considered necessary for students to have a "deep" understanding of the number system per se. Most of us (I remember this myself) "got it" in the process of learning the algorithms and how to apply them, and did (eventually) understand why you had to regroup, what you were doing when inverting fractions (I would have wanted to show how it works, even now it would be hard to explain succinctly in words, but it's easy enough to demonstrate).
The children I was assessing -- with a detailed, widely-used norm-referenced diagnostic math test and also with a locally developed "performance assessment" -- showed the opposite pattern. They understood about place value (haven't played with Base 10 blocks for years for nothing), knew that multiplication is repeated addition, that fractions can name parts of an object, or members of a group, and so on. They could show you (with the ever-present manipulatives), or draw a diagram and explain. They could tell you why you have to rename the ones as tens, why you have to keep the decimal points lined up, what the value of various coins etc. is, what the "big hand" and the "little hand" on a clock indicate, and so forth.
What they could NOT do was reliably apply a procedure to come up with an answer. Given a problem like 24X86, they knew this means you make 24 groups of 86 (or 86 groups of 24), but would get lost trying to build them with blocks or count out the tally marks. If they tried to use the algorithm, typically they got directionality, order of steps, etc. all mixed up, and they didn't know the number facts. The brighter ones would figure out the answer had to be something around 2000, but many did not even get that far. When counting coins, they lacked a strategy such as, counting the quarters first, then the dimes, then the nickels, etc. They randomly counted each one separately and continually lost count. They didn't know how to "count up" to find a difference (or an interval between numbers or clock times).
They could show me fractions -- if I got out some "manipulatives," like plastic dinosaurs, and said, show me a third of these dinosaurs, they could do it. But they didn't know how to read or write the appropriate fractions. Nor could they do any of the fraction operations.
So, on the norm-referenced test, most put in a respectable showing on "mathematics concepts" and "mathematical reasoning" sections ("grade level" or nearly so), but did extremely poorly on operations, problem solving, fractions, money and time, and rational numbers (two or three years lower).. Often they understood the problem and had an idea how it should be solved, but they lacked the skills to solve it (they knew whether to multiply or divide, and what numbers, but could not actually perform the calculations correctly).
What the results tell me is that the instruction they are getting is spectacularly ineffective. They are capable of much better achievement than they demonstrate. As Zig Engelmann would say, the problem is not the kids. It's the instruction. These are curriculum casualties.
When counting coins, they lacked a strategy such as, counting the quarters first, then the dimes, then the nickels, etc. They randomly counted each one separately and continually lost count.
Exactly!
My son is a curriculum casualty of Everyday Math.
He was first exposed to counting coins the Everyday Math way last year in first grade. Coins are expressed in a random series of PNQQPDNPPQND, etc. Children are certainly NOT taught to sort coins and count the quarters first, and then the dimes, and so on. You can imagine how often they make mistakes (gee, maybe it's because letters are usually used to spell something).
I remember counting coins using pictures of REAL coins, sorting them, and adding them. That seems much more real world math for everyday use to me than counting a series of letters encased in circles in random order. Apparently, that's what some young teachers now refer to as the "stone ages".*
*A teacher told my son to erase his subtraction with regrouping equation from his whiteboard because "we're not supposed to do math like that anymore. That was how they did it in the stone ages." He had the right answer but had to re-do the equation to show his work the Everyday Math way.
That article hits it on the nose--if I retired today I would be bringing home more money than I am working full time.
ReplyDeleteI don't work for the money, or for the few extra dollars I will make by staying longer, I am working because I really love what I am doing. Most of us 55 year olds are staying for that same reason. We are leaving, not to get more money but to get away from a system that is abusing us and abusing children. Kids are being forced to learn things they don't understand, and will never understand or need. Classrooms are over crowded. There are no meaningful tutoring programs and the system keeps piling on more and more tests. Older teachers are being harrassed. The schools only want the young ones who are earning a much lower salary and will jump as high as any admin tells them too.
We are just tired of the BS. WE are tired of being fought every time we want to do something to help a kid. We might as well take the money and enjoy our lives.
This WAS an interesting article. However, there must be tremendous variability -- ours is considered an excellent plan, but I did the math and if I retired now I would have to live on 46% of my current income (doable if I moved to a trailer park or seniors' home -- but I'm not attracted to the former nor eligible for the latter). Even at max pension is 60% of previous income. The coup de grace is that one has to purchase one's own medical and dental plan, and there are no comparable ones available from any providers at any price. This isn't so much a consideration for actual seniors but it is if you're in your 50's. Correspondents from other large districts in the east and Midwest have similar stories.
ReplyDeleteFighting the system is something that does definitely lose its appeal over time. Guerrilla instructivism is energy-draining. Can't agree more about the frustration of being confronted with one obstacle after another every time you want to actually teach or help a kid. However I do still get an iconoclastic rush out of defying authority and successfully teaching basic skills: the pedagogical equivalent to manning the lifeboats. One consolation is that if I get REALLY p.o.'d I only have to give 10 days' notice. I could get a pleasant job in a bookstore or something to stay afloat. Of a staff of more than 50, only one other teacher and I have more than 10 years experience, and I'm the only one with much expertise in instructional issues. There is definitely a generation gap in knowledge and skills, no fault of the newer folks. Most had no preparation at all in curriculum, behavior management, instructional design, teaching skills etc. Lots of philosophy instead. I don't dare contemplate what things will look like in another 10-15 years.
Guerrilla instructivism
ReplyDeleteLOVE IT!
Guerrilla instructivists unite. Your services are much needed.
"However I do still get an iconoclastic rush out of defying authority and successfully teaching basic skills: the pedagogical equivalent to manning the lifeboats."
ReplyDeleteThe very fact that such a sentence can be written by an experienced teacher shows the complete lunacy of the educationist enterprise (the system, the prevailing creed, etc.).
When you think it can't possibly get worse, it does. Just last week, I was testing average 7th and 8th graders in math in a Chicago public school. Not one student could do any operations with fractions, not even multiplication. All of them were brought up on constructivist programs and continue with CMP in the middle grades.
I wonder if cases like this are reflected in research on the effectiveness of fuzzy math.
I am lucky--I am a tier 1 NYC teacher. My pension will support me nicely.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I'm a tier 1 teacher in my district as well. However NYC has got to be a tougher environment than ours so you deserve a better deal. I have no interest in "retiring" anyway (I am more on top of things, professionally speaking, than I have ever been) but sometimes the private sector starts looking good.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the low-SES kids who now have completely different life prospects because I knew how to accelerate their reading, writing and math skills do not have access to private providers. That gives me pause. Then I remember middle-class kids need good teaching too.... Meanwhile, I am motivated by results. The day I am finally prevented from getting results by being forced to implement undiluted fuzzy everything, Multiple Stupidities, differentiated ignorance and kootchy-coo baby-sitting, I will be out of there at warp speed.
Instructivist, last month I had a mirror experience to yours but with fifth graders. I assessed a whole cohort in math (only one was a special education student, and he was no worse than the rest), with similar results.
They scored well in understanding "concepts." Whoop-de-doo. But *none* could reliably do computation with regrouping, do mental computation of any sort, measure accurately, use a number line, name fractions, or do any operations with fractions or decimals. Surprisingly they could not even count money correctly!! They could not figure out elapsed time, nor read non-digital clocks.
What good is all this great "conceptual understanding" if you can't count coins under $3.00, measure the length of a board, find the perimeter of a triangle or determine whether to add or subtract to compare two numbers? The one thing most were good at was reading graphs -- pictographs, bar graphs and simple tables.
Some of these students were quite bright and had good reasoning ability but what they ALL lacked was knowledge of number facts, facility with algorithms, precise vocabulary (perpendicular, acute angle, numerator, range), an organized approach (if guessing didn't work they were stuck), in short MASTERY at any level. Like your students, all have had nothing but fuzzy blah-blah since entering school. Few to none can afford Kumon and most don't have computers at home or access to them, so even that kind of practice is not available to them.
A recent study of teacher competence in our district found that most teachers in 5-8 grade mathematics did not themselves show mastery of the subject at that level. I think we may have come full circle. The system is now being run by people who are its products, and many are quasi-literate and numerate, however bright and caring they may be. Also, the lack of any kind of intellectual rigor or scientific and statistical training in their preparation has left them vulnerable to every fad that comes down the pipeline.
That article hits it on the nose--if I retired today I would be bringing home more money than I am working full time.
ReplyDeleteIs that because you can collect pension and also take temporary positions as a .... I've forgotten the term. "Fill-in teacher" is what I mean, but I know there's a term for hiring a certified teacher to take a lengthy position.
My memory is fried along with everything else.
Leave replacement.
That's the term I'm thinking of.
The system is now being run by people who are its products, and many are quasi-literate and numerate, however bright and caring they may be.
ReplyDeleteEd and I see a problem with constructivist administrators.
He was dealing with these people in the 1980s when he headed the CA history/social science project. I'll have to ask him more about exactly where they were at the time, and what they were doing.
He explained it one night, but I've forgotten the details... The jist was that they are now in charge.
the lack of any kind of intellectual rigor or scientific and statistical training in their preparation has left them vulnerable to every fad that comes down the pipeline.
ReplyDeleteoh, boy, you're telling me
death by data
it's not just school personnel; it's everyone
the new U.S. News Rankings put Irvington High School in the top 100 high schools in the country - we are in the "Gold" category.
I'm the only parent in town who has spoken publicly about the fact that not one black student passed the 8th grade state tests in 2006, and U.S. News has now turned me into a malcontent and a crank. We've been ranked -- using official numbers! -- so that's that.
We are now in the era of data without training. Schools everywhere are going to be using data, data, data. The administrator here who is in charge of our data collection/interpretation efforts actually told me she hasn't taken a math course in years and wouldn't be able to help my son with algebra.
She's great, btw, a serious person with the right goals. However, the fact that she would openly tell a parent that she doesn't know enough math to help a kid with algebra 1 tells you where we are. Our schools are now going to be "data-driven"; we're to have data-driven decision making."
This will all be done by people who don't know math and can't do math.
Raw Dataville.
Since the US News ranking was done by Andrew Rotheram (Eduwonk), I hope you will leave a comment on his blog similar to what you stated above.
ReplyDeletegood idea
ReplyDeleteI did contact him to ask about the rankings; he said that Irvington could well have made the top 100 with a pass rate of 44% on AP tests.
The really disturbing thing is that Irvington High School may well be in the top 100 with a pass rate of 44% on AP tests!.
I wonder what the pass rate is in non-Gold high schools?
ReplyDelete"However I do still get an iconoclastic rush out of defying authority and successfully teaching basic skills: the pedagogical equivalent to manning the lifeboats."
ReplyDeleteThe very fact that such a sentence can be written by an experienced teacher shows the complete lunacy of the educationist enterprise (the system, the prevailing creed, etc.).
educationist enterprise
I like that.
I agree: the fact that such a sentence can be written tells you everything you need to know.
Meanwhile, I am motivated by results.
ReplyDeleteThere's a computer science/math teacher in the h.s. I'm extremely keen on (C. has him now for "math lab.")
He used to teach in NYC, and he's a results person.
A friend told me that he pitched himself to parents at some transition to high school event. He was trying to get people to sign up for AP Computer Science, I think, by telling them how high his pass rate on the test was. (May have been 95%....??)
My friend was skeptical; she was thinking he gets the cream of the crop or this, that, and the other. She's a statistician, so she's naturally skeptical of people citing data.
My attitude is: forget the confounding factors; this is a teacher who is pitching himself to PARENTS as a person who can get results!
That's all I need to know (and I'd bet big money I'm right on this).
If C. attends high school here he'll be taking any course he can from this guy.
They scored well in understanding "concepts." Whoop-de-doo. But *none* could reliably do computation with regrouping, do mental computation of any sort, measure accurately, use a number line, name fractions, or do any operations with fractions or decimals. Surprisingly they could not even count money correctly!! They could not figure out elapsed time, nor read non-digital clocks.
ReplyDeleteHow does conceptual understanding show itself in these circumstances?
I'm always confused by the idea of conceptual understanding without mastery.
It does seem that you can have some degree of conceptual understanding of a subject from a distance....but there are limits.
The obsession with chart reading is something else.
ReplyDeleteHow does conceptual understanding show itself in these circumstances?
ReplyDeleteThe best way to illuminate my point would be to contrast my findings with what might have occurred in "the old days." Time was -- the 50's? 60's? when you might often find students who could proficiently, or at least adequately, perform basic operations -- including, in many cases, operations with fractions and decimals -- but would have been at a loss to explain what they were doing, or why they were (for instance) regrouping in subtraction, or inverting fractions to divide them. It was not considered necessary for students to have a "deep" understanding of the number system per se. Most of us (I remember this myself) "got it" in the process of learning the algorithms and how to apply them, and did (eventually) understand why you had to regroup, what you were doing when inverting fractions (I would have wanted to show how it works, even now it would be hard to explain succinctly in words, but it's easy enough to demonstrate).
The children I was assessing -- with a detailed, widely-used norm-referenced diagnostic math test and also with a locally developed "performance assessment" -- showed the opposite pattern. They understood about place value (haven't played with Base 10 blocks for years for nothing), knew that multiplication is repeated addition, that fractions can name parts of an object, or members of a group, and so on. They could show you (with the ever-present manipulatives), or draw a diagram and explain. They could tell you why you have to rename the ones as tens, why you have to keep the decimal points lined up, what the value of various coins etc. is, what the "big hand" and the "little hand" on a clock indicate, and so forth.
What they could NOT do was reliably apply a procedure to come up with an answer. Given a problem like 24X86, they knew this means you make 24 groups of 86 (or 86 groups of 24), but would get lost trying to build them with blocks or count out the tally marks. If they tried to use the algorithm, typically they got directionality, order of steps, etc. all mixed up, and they didn't know the number facts. The brighter ones would figure out the answer had to be something around 2000, but many did not even get that far. When counting coins, they lacked a strategy such as, counting the quarters first, then the dimes, then the nickels, etc. They randomly counted each one separately and continually lost count. They didn't know how to "count up" to find a difference (or an interval between numbers or clock times).
They could show me fractions -- if I got out some "manipulatives," like plastic dinosaurs, and said, show me a third of these dinosaurs, they could do it. But they didn't know how to read or write the appropriate fractions. Nor could they do any of the fraction operations.
So, on the norm-referenced test, most put in a respectable showing on "mathematics concepts" and "mathematical reasoning" sections ("grade level" or nearly so), but did extremely poorly on operations, problem solving, fractions, money and time, and rational numbers (two or three years lower).. Often they understood the problem and had an idea how it should be solved, but they lacked the skills to solve it (they knew whether to multiply or divide, and what numbers, but could not actually perform the calculations correctly).
What the results tell me is that the instruction they are getting is spectacularly ineffective. They are capable of much better achievement than they demonstrate. As Zig Engelmann would say, the problem is not the kids. It's the instruction. These are curriculum casualties.
When counting coins, they lacked a strategy such as, counting the quarters first, then the dimes, then the nickels, etc. They randomly counted each one separately and continually lost count.
ReplyDeleteExactly!
My son is a curriculum casualty of Everyday Math.
He was first exposed to counting coins the Everyday Math way last year in first grade. Coins are expressed in a random series of PNQQPDNPPQND, etc. Children are certainly NOT taught to sort coins and count the quarters first, and then the dimes, and so on. You can imagine how often they make mistakes (gee, maybe it's because letters are usually used to spell something).
I remember counting coins using pictures of REAL coins, sorting them, and adding them. That seems much more real world math for everyday use to me than counting a series of letters encased in circles in random order. Apparently, that's what some young teachers now refer to as the "stone ages".*
*A teacher told my son to erase his subtraction with regrouping equation from his whiteboard because "we're not supposed to do math like that anymore. That was how they did it in the stone ages." He had the right answer but had to re-do the equation to show his work the Everyday Math way.
What is the Everyday Math way of showing subtraction?
ReplyDelete