kitchen table math, the sequel: Ted Nutting on the math mess

Monday, October 13, 2008

Ted Nutting on the math mess

I'm a high-school math teacher in Seattle. When I hear Mark Emmert, president of the University of Washington, say that this state is "at the bottom in the production of scientists and engineers," and warn that our graduates "will be washing the cars for the people who come here for the best jobs," I know what the problem is. It's math. We are failing to educate our children in mathematics. I know how that came about, and what we can do about it.

The problem is national in scope, but in Washington state our difficulties can be traced principally to Terry Bergeson, superintendent of public instruction for the past 12 years. She oversaw the writing of our state's weak, vague math standards, basing them on a "reform" idea to promote "discovery" learning. This has turned teachers into "facilitators" who "guide" children in learning activities. It has promoted "differentiated instruction," placing students of wildly differing abilities together where some students cannot do the required work, often to the detriment of those who can.

She has moved away from rigorous testing. The "reform" math she champions encourages such things as journals, portfolios and group projects that tend to form large parts of classroom grading systems, while test results are relegated to a lesser role. The math portion of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), aligned to her faulty standards, tests math skills at a low level. Even so, about half our 10th-graders fail it.

She has wasted millions of dollars on "professional development" to encourage teachers to put "reform" theories into practice. These theories are supposed to make it possible for all students to learn math. But few students know significant mathematics, and most know very little. About half of our students entering college now have to take remedial math. Many of our students who do succeed use private tutors, and the racial achievement gaps have widened. "Reform's" emphasis on equity and fairness has been revealed to be empty talk.

My experience tells me that we can fix this, and quickly. I am the Advanced Placement calculus teacher at Ballard High School. I don't teach Bergeson-style. I tell my students what they need to know, they do problems to understand how it works, and they demonstrate their knowledge and understanding through testing. Up until this year, we've insisted that our students who take AP calculus actually be able to do the work.

We at Ballard have by far the best AP calculus program in Seattle Public Schools, based on AP test scores. I have no special magnetism or charisma; I'm not a cult figure for teenagers. I have high standards and I require the students to work. If they don't work, they know they will probably flunk. But they do work, and I am proud of them. I also have the benefit of having an older textbook that doesn't fit the "reform math" model, and most of my students have had an excellent pre-calculus teacher the year before.

In most of our other math classes (and I doubt that Ballard is unique in this), we've tended to follow a "reform" model. We've passed students on from class to class; there is no meaningful threshold they must cross to enter a more-difficult class. Since we find that many students in our classes cannot do the work, we dumb down the courses. We say we are admitting unprepared students into our classes in order to "challenge" them.

But students should be challenged in the classes that they are qualified to take, not sent on to classes where they cannot do the work. Unfortunately, things are changing, even in our school's AP calculus classes: We're starting to admit unqualified students, and our program will soon begin to deteriorate.

It's not just Ballard's AP calculus program that is successful, and it's not just the top students. North Beach Elementary in Seattle [was this Niki Hayes' school? will find out] switched its math curriculum to Saxon Math in 2001. This excellent series teaches real math and does not follow Bergeson's fuzzy, reform-oriented ideology. North Beach did this with reluctant agreement from Seattle Public Schools because the PTA paid for the books and because the superintendent supported site-based decision-making. North Beach's passing rate on the WASL rose from 68 percent in 2000 to 94 percent in 2004 — and yet, every year parents worry that real math will be scrapped. Recently, the school has had to seek waivers to avoid having to teach the district's "reform" math.

Legislators have begun to understand the problem. At the Legislature's direction in 2007, the state Board of Education reviewed our state's math standards, finding they were failing. The Legislature set up a system to fix the problems, but that system gave Bergeson the opportunity to sabotage the process. She stacked the committees selected to rewrite the standards with like-minded ideologues. The results were so bad the Legislature refused to accept the rewritten standards, sending them to the Board of Education to fix.

Bergeson then stacked the committees set up to select curricula for state approval. That process is not complete, but the first results are discour-aging. The Legislature had required that the new mathematics standards be based on (among other things) the standards of Singapore, consistently a leader on international tests, but Bergeson's initial submission of texts ranked Singapore Math, that country's official curriculum (and a superior one), dead last out of 12.

Most school-district administrations have gone along with Bergeson and share responsibility for this mess. Even as an uproar arose nationally against the programs Bergeson promotes, Seattle started using two of them in elementary and middle schools.

None of this is necessary. Students can learn math. My students learn it. If our education leaders would follow the lead of our Legislature, stop ignoring obvious successes and support what actually works, we would see major improvements in just a few years.

Ted Nutting is the Advanced Placement calculus teacher at Ballard High School in Seattle.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

A formula for lifting Washington out of its math mess

Students should be challenged in the classes they are qualified to take.

14 comments:

ElizabethB said...

I just sealed my Washington State ballot before reading this article, I'll mail it off tomorrow. I got my ballot quite early, so people I normally ask for guidance were not yet up to speed on all of the issues of the election. I googled and found about Bergeson's opponent, Dorn: "He said students should be tested on calculations and being able to crunch numbers, not “fuzzy” math, which is what he believes the WASL promotes."

That made up my mind. That, and that reading between the lines Bergeson seemed to be for fuzzy math, although she didn't come right out and say it.

Now, I'm sure I made the right choice, hopefully others will, too. Unfortunately, not many people study these type of races closely. I care, and I'm living in another state and homeschooling!

Anonymous said...

Excellent post. Thanks for sharing.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have some examples (maybe a website) that illustrate the differences between the reformed approach and the traditional approach being advocated here? I would love to have some examples I could use to show parents when they come and talk to me about the state of math ed.

SteveH said...

One thing you can do is to send them to the Singapore Math Placement site:

http://www.singaporemath.com/Placement_Test_s/86.htm

Tell them to have their kids take the test. That will get their attention.


However, I would also like to see some examples comparing content AND sequence of lesson plans. One can open up the Everyday Math workbooks and see reasonable problems, but you can't see how they are presented in class, its lack of mastery, and you can't see the likelihood that the teacher will never get to a large percentage of the material. It's unfortunate that curriculum committees make their selection based on the material, not by watching how it's done (whether it can be done) in a classroom.

Often, people get hung up about algorithms, like the Lattice technique, but that's just a small issue. The bigger issue is delayed mastery, which will never get done. I think that Everyday Math is evolving to counter the criticisms (more Math Boxes), but there is a bigger gap between what is in the books and what can be covered and mastered in class. Teachers must love this. There is too much in the curriculum, but they get blamed and sent to more professional development classes.

Tex said...

For examples, you can go to OutInLeftField and search “Math Problems of the Week”.

Here’s one example for 6th grade math:

1. The first assignment in Connected Mathematics Prime Time: Factors and Multiples
My Special Number
Many people have a number they find interesting. Choose a whole number between 10 and 100 that you especially like.
In your journal
*record your number
*explain why you chose that number
*list three or four mathematical things about your number
*list three or four connections you can make between your number and your world. . . . .

2. The first assignment in Singapore Mathematics Primary Mathematics 6A
A watermelon weighs m kg and a pineapple weights 2 kg.
(a) Express the total weight of the fruits in terms of m.
(b) if m = 4, find the total weight of the fruits.
(c) if m = 6, find the total weight of the fruits.

Catherine Johnson said...

Hi Brewhaha!

I remember we posted lots of stuff back on the old site.

Let me see if I can round up links.

Catherine Johnson said...

Here's a "Compare and Contrast" post on TERC. (You may have to hit refresh a couple of times.)

Catherine Johnson said...

Study Link pages from Everyday Math

Catherine Johnson said...

This is a lot of work.

I'm going to put up a post.

Anonymous said...

Yes, there is a lot of stuff at the old KTM site.

One thing I remember that was kind of funny and got people's attention was the side-by-side comparison of the index of one of the reform curriculums next to a traditional math one.

The old site had a lot of great comments from people who were dealing with it at the time.

Also, check out the Illinois Loop site. I think Catherine has it on the sidebar. There's a lot there about Everyday Math and Trailblazers, as well as testimonials from parents and students who learned too late.

SusanS

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the examples. They helped alot. I just talked to a local principal and he said that the district uses the "Growing With Math" curriculum. Do any of you know how reformed this particular curriculum is? The principal also said that the State of Utah just changed their core to a more traditional core and that the district was going to dump "Growing" and pick up something else. I'm interested in seeing what they decide upon.

Anonymous said...

I don't have direct experience with "Growing with Math," but the following link isn't reassuring -- lots of "don't worry that your kid isn't learning the traditional algorithms."

http://shrinkster.com/12gh
From Francis Howell School District

-- ChemProf

Anonymous said...

I agree ChemProf. Sounds pretty reform to me. I teach at a CC and get the joy of working with alot of students who aren't prepared. I can easily see how these reformed approaches are mostly to blame.

Somebody, please fix something.....

concerned said...

Thank you for the post!!

I'm sure that there are similar situations in many states throughout the country.

Unfortunately, there are relatively few upper-level math teachers in high schools.

They see the gap between hs preparation and college math first hand, and are undoubtedly doing their best to prepare students for college.

When it comes to representation on state math committees, they are comparatively few in number.

States need to address this issue.