Are “Headline Stories” a good use of class time?

Every day for about ten minutes, elementary teachers using the Think Math program are supposed to engage the class in an exercise called “Headline Stories”.

This unique feature, the “Headline Stories,” provides open-ended situations in which specific mathematical ideas are embedded. It has three main purposes:
• to develop students’ skills at deriving real-world meaning from mathematical statements and deriving mathematical meaning from real-world situations,
• to develop students’ skills at using both natural language and mathematical language to describe ideas drawn from mathematics or the physical world, and
• to help students learn to solve word problems by understanding how they are built.

Like a newspaper headline, Headline Stories give clues about what might follow, but they leave out the details. Only rarely do they pose a specific problem. Envisioning a story and asking the right questions are left to the students. Part of the learning goal for students is to discover what mathematical questions are possible to ask, or answer, about a situation.

Apparently, the teacher reads aloud or writes a “headline” and then leads the class in a discussion, occasionally journaling. The teacher’s guide gives examples of appropriate mathematical responses for each story.

For instance:

In my hand I have 9¢.
Sample responses: Can it be shared evenly among three people? How can it be made? That’s 2¢ more than I had yesterday. I used to have a dime, but I spent a penny.

There are 6 cookies. _____ children could have _____ cookies each.
Sample responses: 3 children could have 2 cookies each, or 6 children could have 1 cookie each. 4 children could have a cookie each, and 2 cookies would be left over. Up to 12 children can have half a cookie each.

Liam earned $1.00 on Monday, $2.00 on Tuesday, $4.00 on Wednesday, $8.00 on Thursday,
Sample responses: Each day he earned more than the day before. By Thursday, Liam earned $15. 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15. I think he’ll earn $16 on Friday. If this pattern keeps up, Liam is going to be quite rich! How much did he earn so far? If the pattern keeps up, how much will he earn next Monday? I don’t think the pattern can continue.

I don’t fully understand the relative benefits of this exercise. From doing this, a student is supposed to learn how to pull out relevant math information from a statement. However, couldn’t this be better accomplished using actual word problems? Is this a typical time wasting reform exercise? Or, is this a good way to have students construct and learn key math concepts. Also, does successful implementation of this exercise require exceptional teaching skills and math knowledge?

My school has adopted Think Math! for grades k-5

In response to my expressions of concern about adopting this latest NSF program, my school assured me that they “believe it offers the balance we are trying to achieve, while teaching children to be the best in math... and, most importantly, to like math.”

SO, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS FOR THE STUDENTS TO LIKE MATH. It is more important to like math than to learn math, according to my school. This sounds like a familiar theme among reformers. When you take this approach to education, it seems inevitable that standards will drop.

I’m skeptical about Think Math!, to say the least. They insist that they provide abundant practice, including “lots of computational practice embedded in what may look to someone like a free exploration”. Hmm, that should be interesting.

Overall, the rhetoric on their website alerts me to be on the lookout for the usual suspects of reform math - excessive unguided discovery, group work, spiraling, skipping around and success for all. And, I’ve already been assured forewarned that all lessons will include letters sent home to parents.

I will also be looking out for the good parts of Think Math! I hope I find them.

“Low threshold, high ceiling” – Is this a good thing?

In reviewing the website of the new math program just adopted by our school (aargh, more on that later), I came across this:

Think Math! materials are designed to have a “low threshold” and a “high ceiling.” In other words, students can approach any Think Math! activity from where they are at the moment and still succeed, learn, and be challenged.

My first impression was that this was not a good thing. It seemed to indicate this program was not organized in a cumulative, logical format that would require a mastery of the previous lesson in order to succeed in the subsequent lesson. In other words, “just jump in any time, because the program skips around topics.” If a student doesn’t fully learn the material (low threshold), that’s fine. On the other hand, if a student completely masters the lesson (high ceiling), well, all the better. Meanwhile, the gap between the slower learners and the faster learners will continue to widen.

And, for assessment purposes, I would imagine that clearing the “low threshold” constitutes “meeting standards”. This would ensure that no child is left behind.

I also found this description.

Problems that can be adapted for multiple ability levels provide a way to engage every student in a class. These problems are sometimes referred to as "low threshold, high ceiling" problems because all students can understand the problem and solve some part of it (low threshold), but even the highest-ability students in the class will not easily complete it (high ceiling). Rich problems can also be extended to allow students to explore more mathematics.

It seems all about heterogeneous grouping, engaging the students at all costs and low expectations. What’s the good part about this that I’m missing?