1. Do any of the studies you mention control for tutor use or parental intervention at home?
2. Do you have any financial disclosures to make concerning EM, Wright Group/McGraw-Hill?
3. Did you have to take remedial math as a freshman in college?
Laura Troidle
Andy Isaacs should not be citing the ARC Center to show Everyday Math works.
ReplyDeleteThe ARC Center is the officially designated "NSF-Funded Curriculum Implementation Center" for the 3 NSF sponsored elementary school math curriculum projects:
Everyday Math
TERC Investigations
Math Trailblazers
The entity that exists to push certain curricula says they work.
Now that's an "evidence based" standard of proof!!
Wow!
ReplyDeleteI knew Andy Isaacs was involved with Everyday Math but this link shows how much
http://cemse.uchicago.edu/node/50 .
He doesn't say the U Chicago project developed Everyday Math in his article.
He doesn't say he was an author of the 2nd edition of Everyday Math and involved in the development of Math Trailblazers.
He doesn't mention that he's the Co-Director of the U of Chicago's Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education.
The amount of royalty income and other fees these entities earn off of Everyday Math would be fascinating to know.
Financial disclosures indeed.
Many know that Andy Isaacs is not independent and I don't think he is trying to hide that fact. It doesn't really matter, however. This isn't about him. Supporters of EM still have to answer specific questions and problems that are raised about the curriculum.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest question I have now is how they can ensure mastery of any sort of skill (incl. the Lattice Method) when they tell teachers to keep moving along and to "trust the spiral". When and how do teachers assess individual student skills and what, specifically, are teachers supposed to do to correct the problems?
My son's fifth grade EM teacher was not happy when many kids in her class had trouble with basic skills. She was the one who didn't get to 35% of the material. What a choice? Trust the spiral, cover the material, and pass the problems along, or try to fix the problems and skip a lot of material. Her big problem was that in the end she sent home a letter declaring victory over critical thinking and problem solving rather that trying to solve the underlying problem.
Her big problem was that in the end she sent home a letter declaring victory over critical thinking and problem solving rather that trying to solve the underlying problem.
ReplyDeleteAnd how did she measure "victory over critical thinking and problem solving"? I'm willing to bet that her students are just as clueless about logical reasoning and solving multi-step problems as they were before - their counterparts at the college level are scarcely any better. Just the other day I gave a quiz on identifying logical fallacies (matching, for heaven's sake - considerably easier than identifying without clues or prompts), and the results were dismal.
I honestly have no idea how schools can continue to brag about how they're teaching "critical thinking and problem-solving skills." They must live in a different zone of reality than I.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAren't you concerned that Andy's article which doesn't refute Barry Garelick's article will be cited by others as if it did?
The cites will simply say then that there's a disagreement on the effectiveness of EM. The fact that Isaacs can't cite disinterested authority or misportrays what he cites gets lost.
Isaacs seems to be trying to create an appearance of an objective dispute.
Because he fails to cite his affiliations to the curriculum at issue, when his article is later cited by others, his self interest won't be evident.
In a school district adoption meeting, one group will cite one article and the other will cite the other. It magically looks like a legitimate dispute with the academics supporting EM.
Another EM adoption.
In a school district adoption meeting, one group will cite one article and the other will cite the other. It magically looks like a legitimate dispute with the academics supporting EM.Very important point.
ReplyDeleteThe link to Andy's article on EdNews.org should be sent to various school boards as well as reporters covering stories on protested textbook adoptions so that all are able to see the parent comments.
"Aren't you concerned that Andy's article which doesn't refute Barry Garelick's article will be cited by others as if it did?"
ReplyDeleteIt's followed by 30 or so negative comments about EM, but they could ignore those too. Many use the meaningless What Works Clearinghouse comment about EM as justification. Schools will do what they want. Our schools didn't ask our school committee for approval. They were supposed to set up a Citizen's Curriculum Committee, but that never happened. I've given up the hope of ever having a logical debate about this. All I can do is explain what I see to other parents who have to deal with EM. The fights are all local and schools don't offer much opportunity for debate.
Steve, I would agree that school boards have made pre-decided decisions. But recent decisions, such as in Seattle and Palo Alto while for EM, were not unanimous. In Palo Alto it was 4-3. It used to be that there was unanimous voting. There is value in publicizing negative comments--particularly in the press so that school board members have to answer questions about them.
ReplyDeleteWhat we really need is to get the philanthropic organizations to give schools money and freebies for using good textbooks, so that the money tree isn't attached to just the bad ones. But I'm dreaming again, forgive me.
Palo Alto had a split board decision?
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting.
It's good news.
What you absolutely do not want is unanimous boards rubber stamping administrative decisions.