Haters of Math Traiblazers don't have to worry that state budget cuts will force elementary schools to keep using the program.
Chief Academic Officer Donna Hargens told school board members last week that elementary schools were able to purchase the new Math Expressions textbooks before the budget cuts took hold. This means schools should be using Math Expressions in lieu of Trailblazers this school year.
Trailblazers has drawn complaints from a number of parents over the past five years. There was cheering in some quarters when Math Expressions got the nod as the district's new K-5 math textbook.
But not too long after Math Expressions was purchased, the state started cutting back on funding for textbooks. The adoption of new textbooks is being delayed by the state until the economy improves.
School administrators are looking at how to deal with a $4.8 million cut in state funding for textbooks in Wake. The timing of the cuts is especially a pain for middle schools and high schools.
Comments
In summary
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 23:07 — klanders65The text book is the least of our problems.
True
Wed, 08/19/2009 - 07:27 — RichardAndersonTrue, but a brilliant distraction technique, isn't it? Kind of the distraction, I mean diversity policy, huh?
No briliance needed
Wed, 08/19/2009 - 11:54 — klanders65No brilliance is needed. Here we have elementary school teachers who are not prepared to teach math out of any book. They are supposed to grade based on content mastery, but according to wcpss's own analysis, the grades they give correlate more with race than with content mastery (when compared with EOGs that measure mastery of the same content.) No body cares about that. They don't even have to hide it (well, I guess they do hide it in their boring cryptic hard to read papers they write).
Then, they track the math--probably because they don't have enough teachers qualified to teach actual real math. So, start tracking the kids and give only a few true math instruction that prepares them to go on and learn "the real stuff." According to one blogger here, that can start in 4th grade. Why would anyone sort out kids in 4th grade to decide their path through math and science? I can only think of one reason. You've got one teacher qualified to do a good job of teaching math, and some parents are using that fear/bribery technique to make sure that if there are resources, their kids get them.
Everyone just stands by and watches this happen. Even when their own kid is sorted to the group who gets poor instruction that will lead to taking no meaningful math/science courses ever, they just let it happen.
No criteria was in place for math placement until last year, and it was largely ignored. Placement was and is done based on whatever each teacher wants to base the decision on and the result is that math placement correlates with race and income not with mastery of the content. This is documented. But no one cares. Maybe someone cares for a minute, then they move on.
Wake won't let staff use EVAAS because they have their own system of using statistics to determine whether teaching is effective. They adjust expected outcomes down or up, based on income. Then when they sort the high income kids into the more quality courses where learning is greater than the courses they provide for low income students, they adjust the outcomes to show that everyone is performing exactly as we expect them to.
They don't hide this. They have "research" (and I use that term lightly) papers all over their website showing that they do this.
They do all this in plane sight. No one is stopping them. No one seems to care. When I see people falling for all these things, I am not surprised at all that they will fall for believing that math instruction suffered because they selected a text book. People fall for everything that comes out of there. And this textbook trick is nothing compared to the rest of what we all fall for.
I can't figure out if its on purpose or if they really don't know what they are doing.
Very good post, very
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 08:52 — gwaihirVery good post, very informative. This prompts me to make (yet again) the argument that teachers should have a degree in the subject that they are teaching.
When I was a child, I grew up and went to school in another country. The way math was taught there was SO different, from very early on. I remember playing with numbers in primary school and discovering that if you add two even numbers together you always get an even number, and if you add two odd numbers together, you always get an even number also! I thought that was great! My teacher back then had told the class that we should try to discover something about the addition of the pairs of numbers on the board, and that was the discovery. My whole class thought it was cool.
My entire school career was filled with math discoveries such as this.
When I moved to the USA my daughter had had math teaching of this type, all along, in the schools of our birth country. She was middle school aged at the time of our move here, and she had had Geom and Trig teaching as well as Algebra. When we got here and discovered Algebra was split off from Geom and Trig, and she would not do Geom and Trig again till high school, it was a shock.
Her lessons here were just exactly like her learning the alphabet - over and over and over. And she had teachers that could not tell her WHY. They could tell her WHAT, but they could not tell her WHY. I ended up telling her the why, when she asked me "why is this....." because the teacher had not.
In my opinion, teachers need a degree in the subject that they are teaching.
Edited to add: this post is a reply to klanders65 posting. It appeared at the top instead of indented under her post.
like learning the alphabet over and over and over
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 14:05 — klanders65Because they do math placements based on teacher recommendation (e.g., who do teachers think look like they might be scientists or engineers later?) not on any criteria, when someone moves in they may well be placed in the standard math. It sounds like your daughter was. I've had to teach that awful track. It is like teaching the alphabet over and over and over.
Most/many parents don't know the difference between the two math tracks and they try to keep it a secret. Plenty of high income white people don't know the difference. But they know that the kids who have 8th grade algebra get all sorts of other advantages, so they want their kids in 8th grade algebra. I don't think they understand that the math their kids will learn is entirely different from the math that kids in the other track learn.
Plenty of people don't know that 8th and 9th grade algebra are two completely different courses. This is a secret they guard. You can verify for yourself that they are different by looking at the course paths that are official. Kids who take 9th grade algebra have no Honors or AP math (or science) courses on their path through high school. Why would that be if they are the same course?
I know that as a member of the secret mathematicians society, I am not to let outsiders know these things. I just don't think as a nation that we can afford to have nearly the entire population remain innumerate.
I could explain what the difference between the top and standard math classes are in content, but that might be a book. If you are interested, the author John A. Paulos has written about Innumeracy.
http://www.math.temple.edu/~paulos/books.html
Soo...
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 14:55 — Bob_Sconce(1) When does this "tracking" start? It sounds like about 6th grade, is that right?
(2) What sorts of things should a parent with a math-talented student do to get into the track that will enhance his math curiousity instead of boring him to death?
(I was a math major, so this is near and dear to my heart....)
Be a detective and advocate
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 15:59 — klanders65Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this. As a math major, you must know the difference it makes.
I see all the time, that the most talented high scoring students are not recommended for the top track. So, don't assume that your child will be. They don't even tell you there is tracking. It may begin before 6th grade, depending on the school. For sure, it begins in 6th if not before. They may even tell you that there is no tracking in 6th but there is. (A few schools are doing Algebraic Thinking--a program where all 6th graders get "the good stuff." Then tracking begins in 7th. If your school is not doing Algebraic Thinking, then tracking begins in 6th.)
Keep in mind, they lie to you. They tell you things like that your daughter may not be ready but will be ready later. There is no later. If you don't get 8th grade algebra, there is no getting that quality of math later. This is the only chance to get on that path.
As a last resort, you can sign a waiver to place your child yourself. The problem with waivers is that they are the kiss of death for a student. Teachers don't want anyone interfering with the placement process. So, you need your child placed without the waiver, if possible. (Teachers tend to try to get kids on waivers to fail, to prove that only they can say who should be in the challenging courses.)
The WAKE PAGE group has information meetings telling you what to advocate for and how.
The best thing is to be very nice to the teacher, and act important. If they are afraid or think you are powerful, they will place your child high. A mix of bribery and fear will work best. (This is why low income and minority kids are not in the top track. They are not real adept at the bribery/fear combo that it takes to get your kids in the top track.)
Argh...
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 16:50 — Bob_SconceThanks, and I do know how important that is... I just looked at the information from the middle school, and the tracking is clear as day (see the chart in p. 8 here: http://wakefieldms.wcpss.net/Miscellanous_PDFs/rising_6_curr_guide_mini_09.pdf )
I'm not above forcing the issue by signing a waiver -- heck, I'm not above forcing the issue every year for every course, if need be. But, I understand that's not a particularly good way of working with the school.
Criteria
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 17:09 — klanders65There are actually placement criteria now but no one follows them. If your child is a rising 6th grader and has scored...(let me look it up)...Any two of these 3 criteria, and they are supposed to let your child into the advanced track. As I said, they don't use this because almost no one knows about it. It started last year.
If your child fits these criteria, you should be able to get them in the top track without a waiver. They are supposed to be in there if they fit this criteria. Even if they don't, I'd push for to track anyway.
□ EOG Score - High Level III or IV oneither:
□ Profile Card - Level III or IV with 2samples of work attached
□ Professional Judgment - Student isready for 6th Grade Advanced Math even though he/she only meets oneof the other two criteria
Hmm...
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 21:05 — Bob_SconceSo, ok, that may work. But, how does the waiver work? If you sign the waiver, does the kid get in anyway, or does the school get to say no anyway?
They cannot say no if you
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 21:23 — klanders65They cannot say no if you sign a waiver. And if you sign a waiver you should insist the teacher doesn't know it.
There are plenty of kids who meet even the subjective criteria of III or higher on Profile card and have the EOG score, yet the criteria is ignored and they are tracked low. So, start there. Well, actually, start by trying to influence the teacher.
Many teachers think math is hard and the kids might fail if they get tracked high (believing they may not have been born with talent). So, start by asking the teacher to track your kid high, then assure them that you can help them succeed because you were a math major. Lie if need be.
They do placement in the spring/summer so if your child is not in the top track, take care of it immediately. They have to let you move them if you sign a waiver.
Curious
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 17:18 — lferreriI'm just curious. What is a "Profile Card"? How does Level III or IV differ from the EOG score?
I think a Profile Card is
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 17:25 — klanders65I think a Profile Card is like a report card in elementary school. They don't give A, B, C, but rather give I, II, III, and IV. These are supposed to communicate content mastery, and keep behavior out of it. This is what they are trying to do with middle school. Years ago elem went to this method.
Supposedly, the Profile Card score will be consistent with the EOG score because they both measure the same thing--mastery of the NC SCOS (standard course of study).
They did a study last year and found that Profile Card scores do not correlate very well with EOG scores. They found that low income and minority students are more likely to get low Profile Card scores compared with their EOG scores. This study is on E&R's web page.
Thanks
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 17:39 — lferreriThanks. Maybe I am getting cynical in my old age but the way this is structured, a low income or minority child who does well on the EOG can, in effect, be stopped by a teacher from taking more advanced courses since he/she controls both Criterion 2 and Criterion 3. I assume this is what you meant when you suggested that they should switch to an objective measure to determine who can take advanced courses. If so, that makes sense to me.
As a side note, I wondered when they came up with the new grading system what would happen if a child received a mastery score (say a I) that differed significantly from the EOG level (say a III). It sounds as if they are just ignoring the differences but, as a parent, I think this would call the grading system into serious question.
Cynical is good
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 18:31 — klanders65The low income and minority students ARE kept out of the advanced track by teachers. It is not that they could be. They ARE.
And you are right. Two of three of the criteria for math placement are subjective. And grades are correlated to EOGs differently by race.
http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2008/0816ms_grading2008.pdf
They already have this new grading system in elementary school. And, they already do have students receiving I on report card and III on EOG, even though they supposedly measure the same thing.
No one does anything. No one is cynical enough to care about this. Cynical is good.
If you were to ask WCPSS to print a report of all students who scored above the cut EOG score for top track math, and then show which of them are actually in top track math-by race and income, I think you would become even more cynical.
They do whatever they want. No one stops them.
Tracking
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 15:18 — lferreriWhile it may start formally in the 6th grade, I believe that it actually starts much earlier. I attended a parents' session in which the principal told us that, unless your child got into the "right" (his word) 4th grade math class, he or she would not be on track to take algebra in 8th grade.
Hate to see this
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 16:07 — klanders65I totally believe you but boy I hate to see this. I can hardly stand that 6th grade placement basically determines the future of the student for math and science, and has almost nothing to do with talent or ability. (And to me, it is like learning to read. Why would we decide some kids do not need to learn to read? We wouldn't. But we decide some kids do not really need to learn math.)
I hate that the sorting starts in 4th grade.
Once the sorting begins, the kids are there forever. I would think we could save them all the way up to 6th grade, though. After that, the instruction and content is so different you can't.
Was it in a magnet school?
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 15:21 — NWRaleighMomWas it in a magnet school? Most of elementary schools do not differentiate math instruction.
Tracking
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 15:43 — lferreriNo, it was not in a magnet school. I do believe that elementary schools differentiate math instruction even though it may not be obvious to the parents. I base that on both personal observation and what the principal told us. By the way, I know this is also true for English classes. We found out, by accident, that our son's English class would not be reading as many books as at least one of the other tracks. We were naive and did not express concern even though, given our son's ability level, he could easily have read all the books on the other class' list.
I know the same thing
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 16:41 — klanders65I know the same thing happens in English as math. Because I am a math teacher, I focus on that. I think sometimes the scheduling is such that top track English kids get top track math.
The top tracks for both are simply higher quality instruction and better curriculum. And higher expectations...and these lead to better opportunities.
And, students who are in top English and math tracks in middle school will be recommended for Honors and AP courses in high school. They will get more GPA points and will have higher class rank.
It really matters where your child is placed in 6th (and maybe 4th grade) in both English and math.
Remember... bribery and fear. As a last resort, waiver. If you are low income or minority, it is going to be harder for you because you won't have that fear factor going for you. (No one is afraid of you. You are "at risk," which takes away most of your power.) But do what it takes. It matters.
Degrees?
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 09:01 — RichardAndersonIn my opinion, teachers need a degree in the subject that they are teaching.
While I agree with you in most cases, what degree should an elementary school teacher have?
The school I went to required that you get a content area degree and wouldn't matriculate you from the education program if you didn't. They has a special track for primary years education. However, as I understand it, that is the exception, not the rule.
If that was the case for all, how bad would teacher shortages be?
Are you saying that the USA
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 10:25 — gwaihirAre you saying that the USA cannot do what other countries apparently are doing, without teacher shortages resulting?
Are B.Ed undergrads really so unintelligent that they can't attain a degree in an academic subject? I don't believe that - I bellieve they need better teaching themselves.
Clarification
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 11:03 — RichardAndersonAre you saying that the USA cannot do what other countries apparently are doing, without teacher shortages resulting?
No that isn't what I am saying, however, I think you are oversimplifying things. Most other nations have a very different view of education and educators. Teaching is often seen as a prestigious profession. While changing in the right direction, that is not true in the USA.
Are B.Ed undergrads really so unintelligent that they can't attain a degree in an academic subject?
Absolutely not, but I don't think that most people who get education degrees are going to be classroom teachers long term. In my experience, an education degree is for someone looking to go into administration. That is why I transferred from a school that offered an education degree to one that provided teacher training. Once called normal schools, they are hard to find, but do exist.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is the extra workload. To get a social studies teaching certificate through a well regarded teaching program here is what I had to do.
You can switch around the disciplines in 1,2&3 but you get the point.
That is a complete program, in my opinion, but at the end of the day, all I have is a history degree. Unless you are certain you are going to be a teacher (which I was, and I was wrong) why would you undergo all the extra work? Furthermore, when all that extra work gets you nothing in terms of pay, why bother? Most districts will backdate your pay if you get your certification within the first 24 months, so what is the point in working that hard?
Please understand, I don't disagree with you in theory. I am just looking at the practical side of things and seeing a massive disconnect.
One of the biggest issues
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 19:45 — dryeraseuserOne of the biggest issues with TB, when it was introduced to WCPSS was how it was presented to the teachers. We didn't receive a lot of training showing us how to use MTB proram. The interesting thing was how the program was put in our face and we were told YOU WILL USE THIS AND NOTHING ELSE. I have 2 decades of teaching behind me, and I wasn't going to shove everything aside and ONLY use TB. As teachers we are so tired of the "NON-Classroom educators/specialist" making the current and past methods a "BAD" thing and the NEW THING will make everything perfect! That was the first fatal shot to TB, where teachers were concerned. As a professional, there was NO WAY I was going to follow this program down to the last page and NOT use my past experiences and successful methods I learned and developed thoughout my career.
Haters?
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 14:56 — kmisegadesHaters? This is all about learning math correctly using centuries-old methods or being mathematically incompetent as a result of TB. How did we ever send a man to the moon without TB? Easy: kids learned early through traditional methods, clearing their minds for more complex topics based on the basics. Kids today don't know the basics - just watch them try to figure change at a cash register. Where is a lawyer when you need one? Why isn't their a class action lawsuit by all who have been affected by this non-learning? It will cost them millions each in lifetime earnings. Thank goodness my kids got through school before this nonsense started; pity to you whose kids didn't.
Clearing their minds for
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 23:37 — klanders65Clearing their minds for more complex topics based on basics???
Why isn't there a class-action suit that top scoring minority and low income kids are tracked into the low math classes regardless of their achievement scores?
Once middle school starts and tracking begins, the top track gets the quality stuff. Tracking top scoring kids who are likely to succeed into the bottom track in middle school is a much bigger problem than Trailblazers ever was and no one cares about that.
As a math teacher I just wonder what it means to clear someone's head for complex topics. I think low income and minority students must have really clear heads now because we never let them into the classes where the complex topics are taught. When do we consider their heads clear enough to let them start taking rigorous math and science classes?
Here's some math
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 11:27 — g88ky074 new board seats, Plus Ron = MAJORITY!
;c )
Teaching Math
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 11:04 — RichardAndersonI know little to nothing about teaching math, but I have always wondered why it was that there was even a discussion about a different teaching method. Was there anything wrong with the way in which math had been taught previously?
I taught social studies, and there were changes in emphasis all the time. More social history, less political history. More economic history, less global events. More local, less national. And so on. Perhaps it is my unfamiliarity with the subject matter, but it would seem to me that math is math is math. At its simplest level, 2+2=4. History, yes, George Washington was the first President, so there is that, but is there anything in math that compares to the variance given to the importance of his Presidency in terms of the social expectation of subsequent Presidents compared to the actual impact of his Presidency on the political process?
I guess what I am asking is how do you have variability in math teaching when (looking from the outside) the entire discipline is one of absolutes?
analogy
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 00:35 — klanders65I will try to make an analogy that might help you understand. I have to use reading, though. I have social studies anxiety. (just kidding)
In reading, you need to learn the alphabet, to make letters, to spell, sound out words, etc. These are the building blocks and have to be taught first. As you learn these, they start introducing things to read. As you progress, you can eventually read novels and read social studies books. You can write essays, or letters, or research papers, etc.
If reading were like math, we would have mostly elementary school teachers who had never read a novel or even heard of them. But they knew their alphabets and which words rhymed, etc.
When kids went to middle school, the 5th grade teachers, who didn't know what books are, let alone ever read one, would say which kids are to go into the track that will read books and learn to write essays. Everyone else will keep perfecting their ability to make letters and learn some things about grammar, and synonyms, etc. But they won't even hear about books.
For some unknown reason, the middle schools believe the 5th grade teachers can predict who will be able to learn to read books, and will benefit from that. Those kids are led down a different path than others. They start preparing to read books in 6th grade while the other kids keep writing words.
By 8th grade, the kids who were tracked high are reading Mark Twain, Dickens, Red Badge of Courage (I put that in for social studies) and discussing and writing essays about them. They are learning to write research papers. Lets call this class "literature."
The other kids take a class by the exact same name in 9th grade. They take "literature." But they don't read Dickens or Twain. They read the Bearenstein Bears chapter books. This is much harder than anything they've done before now and they hate it. And it is so boring.
(The 8th grade algebra kids go on to take Honors math for all their math because their classes are nothing like what the 9th grade algebra kids are taking. )
The 8th grade literature kids would go on to Honors Literature, and learn Shakespeare, and about themes, cultural references, how to write, etc.
If a 9th grade literature kid earned A+ on his Bearenstein Bears chapter book tests, and decided he loved to read, and wanted to take Honors Literature II, he would be competing with kids who had begun reading world classic novels in 6th grade, and had worked through the great literature since then, and learned to write. This kid has read a beginning reading chapter book and has never written anything.
You could say, reading is reading. What is the big deal? How could there be two different kinds of reading?
I have read the criticism of these text books that attempt to increase the rigor in elementary school math to prepare more kids for top math. Most criticism that I would pay attention to (I don't pay attention to complaints of people who are completely mathematically illiterate, but want math taught they way they were taught it) are from mathematicians and engineers who complain that only some very special people (like them) can learn math--so we shouldn't think that we can prepare more kids. This is a talent you are born with or not, so to think we can improve curriculum that teaches concepts and have any effect on whether more kids learn the more rigorous math is crazy. Then other people (the math illiterates) see this and say "see...even engineers don't like it...
Reading is absolutes. Words are words, right? What difference does it make if we teach some kids the alphabet for 12 years while other kids get to read novels?
And, think how hard it would be to get people to understand this when they have never even heard of a book. They just learned the alphabet for 12 years and found it pretty boring.
something wrong
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 00:02 — klanders65Yes. There was something wrong with the way it was taught. Almost no one learned it.
When I was in grad school, I learned that 20% of US students took the advanced math track. When I thought back, that was about what it was in my h.s.
Everybody takes Algebra, but only 8th grade algebra is what I call "real" algebra. 8th grade algebra prepares kids for advanced classes. It is so much more rigorous than 9th grade Algebra that it may as well be two different courses. If you look at the official routes through math in Wake, only the routes with 8th grade algebra on them have any advanced/AP/Honors math on the track. A student who gets A+ in 9th grade Algebra is not qualified or prepared for any Honors or AP math and will remain in the standard math track.
Huge numbers of US students (and NC students) have to take remedial math when they get to college. They basically take the equivalent of 8th grade algebra when they get to college.
This watered down math that 80% of US kids get used to be okay because you didn't need math past arithmetic for many careers. You do now. And computers do arithmetic. So, the value of learning arithmetic is pretty small compared to its value in the 50s.
This is not so much a change in emphasis. What they used to call "new math" wasn't new at all. The new idea was to teach the stuff that the top track learns. They still teach the "new math" in the top tracks of math.
There is huge variability in what is taught in the top vs. standard tracks of math. And the push is to prepare more kids for the top track because more kids need top track math now.
We have several problems with this. One huge problem that I will continue to complain about until someone hears me and notices... Kids who have mastered the basics in elementary school are definitely ready for top track middle school math. But, teachers recommend placement in 6th grade and only the top 6th grade track ends up in 8th grade Algebra. Students rarely moved after 6th grade.
And low income and minority students are tracked low in 6th grade regardless of their scores. If you don't believe me, look at the data. Have someone look at the data. It isn't hard to do. Only the kids who are tracked high in 6th grade will be prepared for 8th grade algebra. The other kids will never catch up ever.
Those seats are so valuable that there is pressure to give them to the high income kids regardless of their ability. Top-track middle school math creates success.
And it is not like the lower track/standard track. It is entirely different. Totally different things are taught.
I am a middle school math teacher. I know. Ask any teacher. Look at data. How many students who take 9th grade algebra go on to take an Honors math or science class? There are some but very very few. They are not prepared.
We are trying, as a nation, to get more kids in top track math (like other nations do). But we can't figure out how. Partly, it is too political. Those seats are valued by the "haves" and they don't want the "have nots" in there. Learning math is the ticket to good high paying careers so it would upset our society if we let low income and minority students in.
Hmm....
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 16:07 — Bob_SconceWell, there are lots of people who "hate" math and who "don't get it." The idea was to reach out to those people.
"Math Trailblazers" came from a school of thought about how math should be taught, called "constructivism" -- see http://mathforum.org/mathed/constructivism.html .
The big problem with Constructivism is that it's intended to teach concepts by repeating and refining them periodically through a child's education. So, for example, you teach division and if the kids don't get it immediately, they may get it when you teach it 9 weeks later, or 9 weeks after that, etc....
By the time they're done with their education, they're supposed to understand math. The obvious problem, though, is that you don't know if constructivism works until you have a set of students who go through it for 12 years. And, then, if it didn't work, then you've made a 12-year mistake.
No big surprise that WCPSS embraced this sort of experiment -- that's what Del Burns, Ed.D., does. If it's new and fresh from the Ivory Tower, chances are that Wake will try it.
the problem is...
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 23:44 — klanders65I hate to say this, because they do a wonderful job and teaching is so hard...
But, the problem is that elementary school teachers do not understand the concepts in math so they can't very well teach them. Most of them only took math that taught arithmetic skills. And math is not well-liked by elementary school teachers.
If elementary school teachers cared about math the way they do reading, and if they could put the effort into math that they put in to reading we would be in a whole different place. They don't give math the importance they give reading. It is almost as if they think some kids are born to learn math because of some natural talent and the others don't really need to understand it. Think if we thought that way about reading.
The problem isn't what book we are using. Some books can be more problem than others because of this situation. A book that teaches concepts is not going to go over very well when the teachers don't understand the concepts. If the book is preparing students for later learning concepts from advanced math (instead of clearing their heads) and the teachers don't know what they are being prepared for, they won't recognize the importance of lessons. They might even think the lessons are stupid.
Great info
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 07:48 — RichardAndersonFirst, thanks klanders65 for all the great info. I really do appreciate it. I try not to jump to conclusions on these things, and I was really biting my tongue so as not to say that I would bet TB was just another case of administration pushing something onto the teachers and then assuming their job was done.
But, the problem is that elementary school teachers do not
understand the concepts in math so they can't very well teach them.
Most of them only took math that taught arithmetic skills. And math is
not well-liked by elementary school teachers.
If elementary school teachers cared about math the way they do
reading, and if they could put the effort into math that they put in to
reading we would be in a whole different place. They don't give math
the importance they give reading. It is almost as if they think some
kids are born to learn math because of some natural talent and the
others don't really need to understand it.
That is an astute observation, and I agree. However, I don't know how you fix that. Look at the training structure for elementary ed programs. Not exactly a lot of crossover for someone involved in math. I think a lot of what you said is because of how math is taught and most of the people who go into teaching don't "get it". If it weren't teaching, these people would be some kind of humanities majors, for the most parts.
Reading is absolutes. Words are words, right? What difference does it
make if we teach some kids the alphabet for 12 years while other kids
get to read novels?
I guess this is where I don't understand math concepts either. Words aren't just words. They are made up of letters which have (sometimes perplexingly variable) sounds, having meaning, and when putting together form ideas. OK, so digits are like letters, and depending on how you order them, you can make different numbers and I guess you add operators and get something like ideas, but that is really stretching what I know.
Words aren't just words.
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 13:44 — klanders65I was being sarcastic. Words are just words, so what is the difference between learning letters and reading great literature? That is analogous to saying numbers are numbers so how could there be different ways to learn math?
The difference between learning math for real, the way it is taught in the top track is the same as the difference between reading novels and writing letters of the alphabet.
How do we fix it? I don't know. But I think those math specialists for elementary ed are a very good idea. I don't know that we can expect elementary school teachers to be good at everything. I would like a math specialist in every elementary school. I wonder if we could use Title 1 money to do that.
If I were in charge, I would have math specialists in the elementary schools, who designed the lessons, helped the teachers teach them, supported teachers to teach them, etc. And, I would not let 5th grade teachers make placement recommendations for math, that are life determining (same as deciding if you will learn to read or not.) Given the current different math tracks (that I don't agree with, but I'll set that aside), I would place 6th graders in the top track based on their demonstrated achievement. Minorities and low-income students would have the same access that high income white students have, given the same demonstrated mastery of the subject (which they do not now have).
teaching math
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 15:13 — ConcernedParentTraditional math instruction focuses more on memorizing math facts and algorithms for solving problems.
The so-called "NSF" math programs went to the other extreme, focusing on teaching number-sense (ex. If you add two numbers, both in tens, it is unreasonable to get an answer in the thousands) and teaching via word problems.
Educational TV shows like PBS' Cyberchase are built on teaching the conceptual understanding of math and having good number sense.
Expressions is a second generation NSF program that is more in the middle. It still teaches number sense, but it also has elements of traditional techniques. It follows the NC Standard Course of study reasonably well, but still will be supplemented to be sure the SCOS is adequately covered. (IMO - teach the test!)
(Disclaimer - I volunteered on the textbook review committee.)
Thanks to all
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 15:29 — RichardAndersonThanks to all you put some time into helping me understand this. Unlike Mr. Misegades, I don't think that we necessarily have the best way to teach or learn already figured out. It may have worked for centuries, but that doesn't mean it cannot be improved.
At the same time, I am continually dismayed by the way in which the education establishment seems to jump from trend-to-trend. In many ways, I agree with Mr. Misegades insofar as we know we have a way that works because of what has been accomplished by the people who learned via the existing methods.
It is a tightrope between not improving and risking failure. Unfortunately, the price for failure is paid by the child, so I would like to see some more caution. Why go to NSF math in such a complete way? Why not use it to add to the reliable, establish curriculum and see if it helps? Or does it not work that way?
I haven't seen the new texts
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 23:31 — klanders65I haven't seen the new texts but it sounds better. I think Trailblazers was handled all wrong. Teachers need support to make a big change to so different a teaching approach. And that wasn't there.
I do think it so very odd though that everyone seems to think we've done a fine job of teaching math in the past, and we put a man on the moon with our old way of doing math. That is so strange to me. Almost no adult I know, including most teachers can do math past about what is taught in 5th grade. Our national scores are horrible, and always have been. They didn't used to be good.
We don't need to do the math that it took to put a man on the moon. We did that math by hand mostly.
Trailblazers was a disaster, but not because it is bad curriculum. It was handled all wrong. It wasn't right for this county. Our math education is in a sorry state, but it always has been.
Chicago math algorithms
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 16:48 — lferreriThere's a thorough description of the Chicago math algorithms at http://www.nychold.com/em-arith.html if you want to see them.
ChicagoMath
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 17:33 — ConcernedParentThe Everyday Math series (Chicago Math) was quite different from even Trailblazers, and from the adopted Math Expressions.
Note that even Trailblazers, in the latest version, has moved from a pure NSF-gen1 approach.
The newer NSF type curricula are trying to reach a (IMO healthier) balance between the two approachs (new math and old math.)
For an interesting indication of the strong opinions on both sides, do some google searches on "Math Wars" and "TIMSS", specifically,
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1561144,00.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_wars
It can make the YR debate seem calm.....
well then I sure wish they'd
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 18:16 — AngelaWwell then I sure wish they'd get as smart and toss out MYR right behind Trailblazers..NOW instead of waiting.
You read my mind AW
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 18:45 — g88ky07when can we "drop" the colossal failure of MYR???????
how about October 7th!
I took my own advice....
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 12:45 — fiestamomHere's an online letter where a frustrated Dad explains Chicago math a lot better than me.... serprize serprize
http://eklhad.net/chimath.html
My problem with Trailblazers...
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 12:43 — fiestamomHi Richard,
The Trailblazers method mainly uses the "Chicago math" method.
Trailblazers relies on group work, and a LOT of word problems. Trailblazers is very difficult for a kid who has reading problems because of this defect.
It's hard to explain, but trailblazers uses bits/skinnies as units, instead of just 2+2=4. If you google Chicago math, you'll have to wade through a couple pages of the 'pro- chicago math propaganda" and you'll find that Trailblazers isn't popular with parents who are engineers. Parents in California's Silicon Valley, have demanded that their kids learn math the 'old" way.
Good-bye trailblazers
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 13:57 — Dadof3What a brain-blight that nonsense was.
My oldest escaped the nonsense that TB was; and my middle child, smack dab in the middle of it, was good in spirit in "playing along," but we did a large assist from home to make up for mind-numbing ridiculous abstraction of kibbles/bits/skinnies as a means to understand the application of arbitrary unit exchange; surely a critical skill to develop before developing basic math concepts. <eyeroll>
Here's to TB recycling not going as paper pulp to some other ivory-tower wild hair.
There are some who believe
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 11:55 — KeungHui (author)There are some who believe the traditional method of teaching math through drills and rote memorization is still the best way. Others feel that the traditional methods do a poor job of teaching students how to apply concepts, hence things like Trailblazers.
math expressions
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 10:08 — volvo2Math Expressions is somewhat better as many year round schools have been using it all summer. It's not perfect, however, and teachers are finding it still has to be supplemented to meet NC's standard course of study (SCOS.)