Posts
at eduwonk
I haven't read the entire thread, currently standing at 66 comments, so perhaps matters took a turn for the better after I left. At that point the question I was asking myself was: When a parent says that a curriculum has failed to teach his child, should a Fordham Fellow listen?
How about several parents?
(How about several parents backed by a posse of mathematicians?)
What is the relationship of education think tanks to parents?
.....................
more later
I'm off to Hogwarts to hear a mom speak about losing her son to a drug overdose. After that, I plan to be up half the night thinking about this mom who lost her son to a drug overdose.
But first, Christian turns 30 this weekend! Time for cake.
march of the pundits, part 1
speaking of pundits
march of the pundits, part 2
how to change the system
parents need a union
Independent George on the pundits and their ways
one is a nutjob, twenty five are powerful
first person
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
"...perhaps matters took a turn for the better after I left."
Yes and no.
Did you expect them to change their basic assumptions and beliefs? One person did agree that you have to work backwards from college to define math requirements, but didn't have enough knowledge of math to know what it means in K-6. Amazingly, this does not slow down many educators. It's a turf thing.
Interestingly this Fordham Fellow used the same logic for which supporters of traditional math are held in disdain. She claimed that Everyday Math "worked for her" as a teacher of inner city students. The difference between her utterance and that of the traditionalists is that there are stats/test scores (like ITBS scores not the dumbed down NAEP) that support traditionalists' claims.
Amazingly, this does not slow down many educators. It's a turf thing.
Right. And the turf is other people's children.
Therein lies the problem. Contempt for parents, indifference to children as individuals. This child cries when the EM textbooks come out? That child is being taught at home by her mom? This other one has lost all interest in the subject?
Irrelevant. The action's in the subgroups.
We are now having major Subgroup teaching in my district. I attended the last board meeting and came away with the very strong impression that formative assessment in math was provided to the "1s" and "2s".
My own kid ("he is a 3"), in May of his final year in middle school, was provided two informal formative assessments. Two. In three years of school. These two assessments occurred only because Ed and I took time out of our day jobs to meet with both math teachers, ask them directly to perform formative assessment, and brainstorm with them ways they could do it since they didn't know how because they'd never done it before. (I wonder what that fancy formative assessment consultant from CT has been doing all this time? Ignoring the 3s, I guess.)
That meeting produced two formative assessments, after which things went back to normal. Normal meaning mom collects and corrects the homework & performs all formative assessment.
Joe Williams again:
One of the most overlooked tools of modern school reform is the concept of power--who has it, who wants it, and who needs it. One reason so little changes in education is because the people who hold the cards area always the same, no matter what the popular reforms of the day involve. We have tried centralization of decision-making power and decentralization of decision-making power. We've raised standards and enacted zero-tolerance policies. We've beaten into the ground such catch phrases as "lifelong learners" and "capacity building." Yet, in all these reform e never really been allowed to be the ones who get to make the ultimate decision: choosing their child's school. Bureaucrats and politicians always seem to get the last word, even though parents have the best odds of making decisions that put their kids first.
Cheating Our Kids
p. 214-215
We need more than just the power to choose our kids' school. We need to be able to choose our kids' curricula and teaching methods.
I want - I demand - the liberal arts disciplines taught by an instructivist.
I reject out of hand the "interdisciplines," the endless making of posters and Spanish menus and styrofoam solar systems, and the purchase of pre-fab pre-engineering kits that don't require a math teacher to teach.
parents have the best odds of making decisions that put their kids first
Public schools and public school wonks do not put individual children first.
Interestingly this Fordham Fellow used the same logic for which supporters of traditional math are held in disdain.
The whole thing was extraordinary.
We've got a Fordham Fellow engaging in ad hominem attack, hasty-generalization, and rank-pulling. All within the space of one comment thread.
I hope we've got some pundits out there who will reflect on the nature of that exchange. It is educational.
Ms. Cullen's tone and manner of relating to parents demonstrate why "parent involvement in the schools" means "shut up and teach."
We do what we do.
"pre-fab pre-engineering kits"
Is that what you found out they do in PLTW, put together kits? Are they teaching them a hobby? The role of college is to give engineering students the theoretical understanding to do more than follow rote instructions. Imagine!
I found the exchange very interesting, especially when the discussion was forced down to the details. Their arguments faded out. I noticed that the link to EM's scope and sequence chart doesn't work any more. Nobody could explain exactly how teachers would follow this chart to ensure mastery. I could have done a better job of defending Everyday Math.
The best that could be done was to claim that EM CAN work and that schools have to work really hard to make it a success; more of a success than Investigations, that is. We parents, who have suffered through years of it with our kids, are just not giving it a chance.
Apparently, we parents don't have the proper level of knowledge and critical thinking skills.
EM's "success" if it can be called that, is relative. Compared to MathLand or Investigations, it's a distinct improvement. But when held up against other more effective programs such as Saxon, Singapore Math, Sadlier Oxford, or others, EM doesn't look quite so good.
Mathematically Correct gave EM a C-, explaining that some of their presentations/problems were quite good. I would agree that some of the problems and contexts are good--but the sequencing of topics is such that it's not going to do much good for the students who have not mastered what they need to know for the lesson du jour to do any good.
We've got a Fordham Fellow engaging in ad hominem attack, hasty-generalization, and rank-pulling. All within the space of one comment thread. I hope we've got some pundits out there who will reflect on the nature of that exchange. It is educational.
Well, I hope so too. But I'm a bit disheartened, since "The Quick and the ED" which is a blog published by the same group that publishes Eduwonk (Education Sector) href="http://www.quickanded.com/2008/09/what-works.html">contained a piece on the What Works Clearinghouse, and how EM is one of the few texts that got a favorable rating.
The write up was by Chad Aledeman. So is Education Sector now semi-officially endorsing Everyday Math? Read the whole *&^#% thing.
Looks like my embedded link to Quick and the Ed didn't work. It's at:
href="http://www.quickanded.com/2008/09/what-works.html
That thread really is astonishing. On the one hand, you have a professional backing EM in vague generalities, while the "civilians" independently demolish her every argument with specifics about the most minute detail. It's pretty much the model of an engaged, informed citizenry participating in the public sphere - and the reaction was pretty much the model of an entrenched, indifferent bureaucracy.
"That thread really is astonishing."
It is, especially since they're talking about teaching logic and critical thinking.
The worst part is Ms. Cullen's constant refrain for the parents to 'give EM a chance', when it was painfully obvious that they were intimately familiar with EM, and and were clearly documenting all of its deficiencies based on first-hand experience. On the flip side, it was equally apparent that she had only passing familiarity with Singapore Math, and completely unable to address the numerous substantive issues being brought up. And somehow, she manages to dismiss the entire debate as just another battle in the Math Wars without ever directly addressing the substantive issues mentioned. It's mind-boggling.
you have to work backwards from college to define math requirements, but didn't have enough knowledge of math to know what it means in K-6.
Apologies if this has been covered somewhere already, but I was wondering if you could give a quick rundown (or post a link
) of what that would be--what skills should kids have mastered by the end of each grade to be on track for 8th grade algebra?
The National Mathematics Panel Report is a good overview of "school" math and it provides some grade level benchmarks. (I would have set the expectations a little higher.) You can also go to a state like California see some of their examples for each grade. You can also do a search for Singapore Math placement test. That's probably the fastest way to get an idea. I don't have the time to round up these links right know. I'll try to get to it later. Perhaps others have some good links too.
Thanks. I'm sure it gets discussed here all the time, but I haven't managed to come across the info all in one place. I'll take a look at the places you suggested.
I guess I'm curious both what the minimum pace should be, and what the argument might be for setting the pace even faster.
With my 6 year old, I feel like we kind of see-saw back and forth (using Singapore Math), because he is able to pick it up very quickly, but he will then start "perseverating" on math all the time, which gets to be a little overwhelming. So, I'd also be curious about pro and con arguments for accelerating as fast as a kid can go (though I also want a better sense of the minimum pace that should be set for "typical" kids).
Post a Comment