math is like a bowl of popcorn

From the Baltimore Sun:

But others disagree. John Haven, whose children attended Montgomery County public schools, believes far too much time in classrooms is spent on nonessential math work. He made an unscientific study of math teaching in Montgomery and concluded that, by his standards, 20 to 40 percent of what is taught is a waste of time. "It is a huge impact on math instruction. It is like having popcorn parties every Tuesday and Friday," he said.

I think that might have been John Hoven who gave us that quote. Anyway, read the whole thing.

constructivism -- just a hoax?

In an email from a noted education writer for a major metropolitan newspaper, this writer said the following with regard to constructivism:

Life is too short for me to try to distinguish for readers the difference between true constructivism and guided discovery. It really is not an interesting issue, because readers only care if their kids are learning, and I dont think I have ever seen anything in a public school that could qualify as true constructivism, and there is almost nobody out there with any influence pushing for t. c. It doesnt exist except in a very few private schools, if there.

This is from a writer who no matter what arguments you proffer in opposition, will respond, "oh, but what I meant was..." From what I've seen, the theory of constructivism has manifested itself in textbooks such as TERC's Investigations, or Connected Math Program, or Everyday Math, or IMP, or Core-Plus. One can make arguments that EM is not really constructivist. Well go ahead and make them. It sure isn't guided discovery. And it isn't mastery learning either. So you tell me what it is?

Adherents of constructivism will of say "Well of course we don't use constructivist techniques every day; it would be impractical." But they use them often enough. Giving students problems for which they do not have enough information or skills to solve them is but one example.

But enough of me talking. How would you respond to this darling of the edu-journalism community in 50 words or less?

labeling failure

From the Times:

To move forward, the country must also find new ways to support and transform failing schools, beyond labeling them failures and presuming that the stigma will inspire better performance.

I don't understand all the hub-bub over labeling schools that are failures as failures. There's nothing wrong with a little truth in advertising. Plus, there's the the what's good for the goose is good for the gander aspect. Schools have been labeling perfectly normal kids who've they failed to teach as "learning disabled" for quite some time now and I don't see the NYT bemoaning that state of affairs.

So what's wrong with calling these failing schools "teaching disabled"? No one ever complains when we call other failed businesses "bankrupt," "underperforming," or "struggling." Why should schools be immune from accurate labeling. At least when we label a school as failing it places the stigma back where it belongs--on the failed education professionals.

If we want the market to work like it's supposed to, accurate labeling is a necessity. When a new family is looking to move into the school district, we want the realtor to be able tell them that the school is "teaching disabled," so unless little Johnny and Susie are super students there's going to be lots or academic failure or the expense of tutors in the family's future.