In line with the new common core standards adopted by the state, the Wake County school system will implement new math course names and sequencing for the 2012-13 school year.
During Tuesday's school board meeting, staff laid out how the new math sequencing, which in middle school would be used with EVAAS to place students, would look. Staff also gave new data that could put a different spin on the arguments used by critics who've said that using an EVAAS predictor score of below 80 percent is too low.
All five member school districts of the Triangle High Five are supposed to use the same sequencing and course names.
(I'll post the handouts later today but I'll try to walk you through it in the post.)
It will be called Common Core Math 6, 7 and 8 in middle school and Common Core Math I, II and III in high school. Initially, DPI wasn't sure about those names but N.C. State Professor Jere Confrey, who helped Triangle High 5 with the math proposal, said the state is letting them use those names.
Confrey said they need to use new names so that parents and students will realize how much change there is in the new math curriculum. Other districts are looking at keeping the old names like Algebra I and Integrated Math I, but Confrey said that's not accurately reflecting how much more rigorous the courses will become.
"You have to get parents to understand this is a whole new ball game," Confrey told board members.
Wake staff is proposing a two-year phase-in because of the students now in the 5th/6th-grade compacted math courses. Ruth Steidinger, Wake's senior director of middle school programs, said that they had to develop a way to place those students for the upcoming school year.
She also said 5th/6th-grade compacted math will disappear after this school year.
In 2012-13, rising sixth-graders who are below an EVAAS 70 percent achievement probability for scoring Level III in Algebra I/Common Core Math I will be placed in Common Core Math 6, which is essentially regular sixth-grade math. Confrey explained that EVAAS is predicting the student's probable success in Algebra I for when they take the course, not that the rising sixth-graders can take it then.
In 2012-13, rising sixth-graders who have a EVAAS 70 percent achievement probability or higher for scoring Level III in Algebra I/Common Core Math I will be placed in Common Core Math 6 Plus, an accelerated version of the regular Common Core Math 6. Confrey said plus means that students will cover more material than they normally would for that course.
In 2012-13, rising sixth-graders who have a EVAAS 70 percent achievement probability or higher for scoring Level III in Algebra I/Common Core Math I and who have completed compacted math will be placed in Common Core Math 7 Plus.
In 2012-13, rising seventh-graders who are below an EVAAS 70 percent achievement probability for scoring Level III in Algebra I/Common Core Math I will be placed in Common Core Math 7.
In 2012-13, rising seventh-graders who have a EVAAS 70 percent achievement probability or higher for scoring Level III in Algebra I/Common Core Math I will be placed in Common Core Math 7 Plus. While not exact, it's analogous to the old Pre-Algebra class that students would take in seventh-grade as a prerequisite to take Algebra I in eighth-grade.
In 2012-13, rising seventh-graders who have a EVAAS 70 percent achievement probability or higher for scoring Level III in Algebra I/Common Core Math I and who completed Pre-Algebra will be placed in Common Core Math I, the new high school level course.
In 2012-13, rising eighth-graders who are below an EVAAS 70 percent achievement probability for scoring Level III in Algebra I/Common Core Math I will be placed in Common Core Math 8.
In 2012-13, rising eighth-graders who have completed Pre-Algebra and who have a EVAAS 70 percent achievement probability or higher for scoring Level III in Algebra I will be placed in Common Core Math I. This is essentially the same goal that's been pushed the last few years to get more students deemed ready by EVAAS into Algebra I in eighth-grade.
In 2012-13, rising eighth-graders who have completed Algebra I will be placed in geometry.
Now let's jump to what would be in place for spring 2013 and beyond.
The placement for rising sixth-graders into Common Core Math 6 and Common Core Math 6 Plus are the same.
But rising sixth-graders who have a EVAAS 70 percent achievement probability or higher for scoring Level III in Algebra I and who have a 98 percentile score or higher on a nationally normed aptitude or math achievement test will be placed in a combined Common Core Math 6 and Common Core Math 7 class.
For rising seventh-graders, there's no change in how students would be placed in Common Core Math 7 and Common Core Math 7 Plus.
But rising seventh-graders who have completed Common Core Math 6 and Common Core Math 7 would be placed in a combined Common Core Math 8 and Common Core Math I class.
There would be no change for how rising eighth-graders would be placed in Common Core Math 8.
For rising eighth-graders who have who have a EVAAS 70 percent achievement probability or higher for scoring Level III in Algebra I and who completed Common Core Math 7 Plus, they'd get Common Core Math I.
For rising eighth-graders who have completed Common Core Math I, they'd take Common Core Math II, which is the second year of high school math.
In high school, students who don't take a plus course in middle school would take Common Core Math I as freshmen, Common Core Math II as sophomores and Common Core Math III as juniors. They could take additional math courses in their senior year.
In high school, students who completed Common Core Math I in eighth-grade would take Common Core Math Plus II as freshmen and Common Core Math Plus III as sophomores. They'd get two years to take additional math courses.
In high school, Wake students who had completed Common Core Math II in middle school would take Common Core Math III Plus as freshmen. They'd have three years to take additional math courses.
Upon repeated questioning from Republican board member Debra Goldman, Steidinger assured her that the plus courses in high school would be treated as honors courses on the 5.0 scale.
Confrey said she's not a fan of Wake's proposal to let students accelerate by two years in middle school. She said that the old curriculum had so much review time that it was possible to compact the courses. But she said the common core covers so much ground that accelerating by two years will create a lot of gaps for students.
Steidinger said they recognize that there will be gaps so they're working with Academically Gifted program staff to help cover them for those students. She said they felt that it would be like putting your "head in the sand" to ignore the bright and gifted students who would benefit from the two years of acceleration.
Steidinger said they feel they can reach more students for the extra accelerated track because they're no longer requiring AG students who want the math course to both show aptitude and achievement. Instead, they can show either one.
Staff plans to bring back a version of the math placement policy that was tabled in November for a vote on Feb. 7. Democratic board member Jim Martin questioned the need to have a placement policy on one subject area when they don't have it for others.
During the discussion, Steidinger passed out a handout showing that in 2010 there were 598 seventh-graders who had an EVAAS predictor of 70 to 80 percent and who went on to eighth-grade in Wake in 2011. She said only 107, or 18 percent, of those students were placed in Algebra I in eighth-grade in 2011.
Of that 107 students, 56. or 52 percent. passed Algebra I in eighth-grade.
Critics of the math placement policy had pointed to the low passing rate to suggest using a higher than 70 percent cutoff.
But Steidinger said that 64 of the 107 students were placed in a class with a teacher evaluated as "below" by EVAAS. This means the teacher's students were showing progress below the state average in the subject. Of those students, only 21. or 33 percent. passed the Algebra I exam.
She said 24 students were placed with a teacher evaluated as "ndd." NDD means the teacher's students were showing progress that's not detectably different from the state average. Nineteen of the students, or 79 percent, passed.
Steidinger said 15 students were placed with a teacher evaluated as "above." That means the teacher's students were showing progress above the state average. Of the students, 13, or 87 percent, passed.
Four of the students didn't have teachers with value-added estimates.
Steidinger said they'd work with middle schools about placement of students.
UPDATE
Click here to view a handout with info on the sequencing and on the 107 students who were placed in Algebra I in 2011.
Click here for descriptions of the middle school and high school math courses.
Comments
Is this for students that
Sun, 04/15/2012 - 10:43 — chinthapatlaIs this for students that are not advanced!?!
Hi, Out of curiousity, my
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 19:24 — chinthapatlaHi,
Out of curiousity, my daughter is in seventh grade and wants to advance in math and she is currently in algebra 1. in seventh grade she is suppossed to take geometery, but she also wants to do algebra 2. Though her school does not provide algebra 2, so she is thinking about taking it in the summer of 7th grade. Is this possible? Like taking an an online course or something!
PLEASE HELP!
nc virtual public high school
Sun, 04/15/2012 - 12:54 — Carolina_lemurCheck with your guidance counselor. Classes are offered online through NC Virtual Public High School, but at least at our WCPSS high school, we have to go through the school to register to take classes and get credit. www.ncvps.org Some (maybe all) high schools offer Summer School too, but I don't know if middle school students would be allowed to register.
How are they going to offer
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 23:16 — RWTHow are they going to offer the super-advanced track at every middle school, especially YR? There may not be enough children at a school/on a track to offer it. Are the qualifying kids' parents going to get a chance to choose a school that does offer the appropriate course? Are principals going to have to shift qualifying students onto the same track?
I'm glad that they have spelled out the criteria for everyone to see. I also like that you don't have to run your child's application by a SBCGE just to get in and then hope that the principal and AIG teacher also happen to like your qualified child.
I would like to see alternative ways to get onto the accelerated path using a history of level 4 + work, teacher or parent nomination, etc., with opportunities to transfer out of the track after each quarter. Also, I like the idea of putting the accelerated classes into middle school, where the class wil be taught by a (hopefully) qualified middle school math teacher instead of an elementary AIG teacher.
Criteria spelled out?
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 00:19 — klanders65I don't see where the criteria are spelled out. Maybe I am missing something. They spell out the criteria for middle school, but clearly, the tracking begins in 5th grade. Did they clearly spell out the criteria for getting in to that 5th grade advanced track, which is needed for getting into the middle school advanced track?
I am just not seeing it. Can you point me to it?
This is where parents have to advocate
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 06:59 — RWTIf your kids scores above 95 on math (CogAT, ITBS) in 3rd grade, begin advocating with the classroom teacher for supplementation in 3rd grade. Then watch the EOGs. If your kids gets a 98 or above on thse, start pushing hard, writing letters to the teacher and school counselor.
If your kid was close to 98, i think you can ask for an AG re-evaluation in fifth grade, since technically AG falls under the exceptional student category. Then there is always the option of private testing.
The national "EOG" tests will not be available for a couple of years, I think, so I wonder what the plan is in the meanwhile to provide a nationally normed test to borderline kids in 4th and 5th grades. Or did I see something about a system-wide math placement test? That might not be a bad idea since by fifth grade, the kids will have lots of practice at test-taking. This would provide additional data with which to populate the math tracks as well as giving an additional chance to kids who froze up on the ITBS, which was the second standardized test many of them had ever seen.
And remember...
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 10:30 — JSBinNCthis year, they ran all that testing very early - like 2-3 months earlier than previous years. so a lot of the concepts in the tests specific to some parts of math have or had not yet even been introduced to the third graders... so if you have a 3rd grade student this year that tested out sort of in a "grey" area in terms of scores/percentiles - you might consider testing privately as Bob said - later this spring to see where he or she truly nets out.
I heard that the testing dates were moved for multiple reasons.
Private testing...
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 08:20 — Bob_SconceHigly recommended. One of the reasons that that district picks the CogAt and ITBS is because they're easy to administer en masse, which tends against accuracy. I understand private testing is also really helpful with IEPs. (And, no, bright kids with IEPs is definitely not a contradiction in terms.)
If I am following it correctly
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 01:31 — nmoskalThe 5th grade advance track (5th/6th compacted) is going away. All students will take the same 5th grade math class. However, students who would have been in 5th/6th compacted if it still existed, will be given enrichment work within the 5th grade class. It looks like the super-acclerated track now waits until 6th grade where some students will get 6th/7th compacted. Supposedly those that scored in the 98th+ percentile on either a nationally normed aptitude or achievement test (and meet EVAAS criteria) will be placed in 6th/7th compacted. Of course, my question (based on the placement data for 5th/6th compacted where one school had placed almost all their AG students into the class while others only placed a few) is who wants to place bets on whether or not that 98th+ percentile will be adhered to consistently across all schools, especially if the criteria are not policy, but rather just a "best practice"?
Parents of 98%tile kids will
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 07:12 — RWTParents of 98%tile kids will have to do their homework and find out if their pre-assigned school is providing ALL of the math tracks, and if not, raise hell with that school and the area super-intendent and/or apply to leave through the choice process.
(this is part of the reason why we should get rid of the feeder pattern, by the way).
If the child is not placed appropriately, then the parent should apply for a transfer to a school with the program citing the lack of program availability at the assigned school. That is supposed to be one of the reasons why students are granted transfers: to access appropriate programming. However, the parents should be prepared to research which schools offer 2-year advanced math and come to the transfer hearing armed with a list, because their favorite school may not have room. I imagine there will be no transportation, too.
I wonder if there would be any interest in creating regional programs so that they can gather together enough 98%tile kids to offer the 2-year advanced track, sort of like the regional programs for self-contained special education classrooms. What is the minimum number of students needed to justify creating a special section of accelerated math?
Advocacy
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 10:27 — klanders65Is someone going to help parents advocate? Some parents are ignored when they try to advocate.
Maybe PAGE?
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 17:46 — RWTI know that there are a lot of groups that help advocate for kids with learning differences and developmental disabilities, groups that will either send an advocate or train the parents. So I wonder if anyone from PAGE would know about advocates for disempowered parents of gifted students? Hmmmm.
You'd think that the school counselor and the AIG teacher could pull out the names of kids eligible for AIG im general and math acceleration in particular and make sure they get what they need. You'd think it would be a point of school pride to boast, "We successfully placed 18 rising sixth graders into the accelerated math classes in their middle schools! That's over 10% of the graduating fifth grade class! Yay, us!"
What a fantastic selling point: placing over 2% of your fifth grade class into accelerated math could mean that your school is doing a great job just beating the odds. Of course, it could also mean that the school's population is generally skewed toward the high end of the bell curve. Either way, the school looks good to people who are going to consider sending their kids there. It would also put upward pressure on mediocre middle schools to shore up their course offerings because the families of those accelerated kids aren't going to choose a school that doesn't have additional challenging courses.
Touting our ES - Olive Chapel
Sat, 01/28/2012 - 01:49 — jenandjonOn that note, a big congrats to Carol Arbogast and the Olive Chapel ES teachers. They have done a great job challenging their students and I believe my son's AIG 5th grade math class has over 15 kids. Many Duke TIP students and future STEM kids in the group. Way to go OCE!!!
Is your middle school ready?
Sat, 01/28/2012 - 09:35 — RWTYou, the other pants of these kids, their classroom teachers, the counselor, and the principal need to start NOW to make sure they have their compacted Math 6/7 and Math 8/I ready to go and a plan to deliver them to all calendar tracks. Just saying, because the two non-magnet middle schools I toured last spring were surprised by the increase in 6th graders ready for pre-algebra and the demand to 6th-grade-only sections of the course. Their plan was "we'll find a place in pre-algebra, but it might be with 7th or 8th graders."
I was glad when my son got into a school that had a history of offering two 6th grade only pre-algebra classes.
We were fortunate as well
Sat, 01/28/2012 - 12:32 — jenandjonMy son and at least one of his other classmates were fortunate enough to hit the lottery and will be at Ligon for 6th grade. RWT... what school did you find that offered the two 6th grade pre-algebra classes? If you don't mind... what were the two non-magnet MS that were surprised with the increase in demand for pre-algebra. I'm hoping the western wake neighborhood middle schools are ready. If you take a look at the 2011-12 overview of 5/6 compacted (wcpss ED task force site) its easy to see the concentration: Davis Drive, Green Hope, Olive Chapel, Morrisville, Highcroft and then you see Oak Grove and the strong magnet at Washington. I hope Davis Drive, Mills Park and Lufkin Road MS are prepared.
I called Salem and Apex,
Sat, 01/28/2012 - 13:34 — RWTI called Salem and Apex, just in case my son didn't get into Martin or Carnage. Both Salem and Apex said that for 2011-12, sixth graders would just go into whatever pre algebra class had room and that they didn't think they'd have enough to offer a sixth grade only class when I expressed alarm at my son being away from his team for a core subject. Part of salem's issue was assembling a large enough group considering the 4 tracks.
Martin has two pre algebra classes on the Sharks and Mantas (not the Dolphins), and Carnage has two, one on both 6th grade teams, and a cross-team 6th grade algebra class.
Minimum number
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 10:00 — nmoskalGiven that a number of ES had only 2 to 4 kids in compacted 5th/6th this year and some had 1, it appears there is no minimum. I think you may have misunderstood my point. From the 5th/6th compacted data, it doesn't appear that qualified students were not placed in, but rather the opposite. Some schools had large numbers in it that seem would exceed how many would fall in the (think for 5/6 was 96) percentile criteria.
I did not miss your point
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 11:35 — RWTIn elementary school, there is no minimum number for an AIG pull-out. In middle school, it would be harder to justify a math class of just 6 students. I completely agree that some kids were not getting placed, and that was because
1. There was a lot of subjective criteria for placement (I was not kidding when I said that you and your child had to be in good graces with the AIG teacher, principal, and/or SBCGE, because that is what happened at our school during the first year).
2. The program involves a pull-out by a teacher who may or may not even want to handle ALL the able kids (again that whole subjective criteria thing) instead of in-class differentiation by the child's classroom teacher, most of whom could probably handle differentiating their one or two kids in the program and who probably should have been doing it anyway.
3. It was a secret at some schools for two years (not all parents of AIG children were informed of the formation of the class, and YES I know that supposedly only 98%tile kids can handle it, but I know kids at 95%tile who are doing just fine in sixth-grade pre-algebra).
4. Inconsistent criteria across the WCPSS population: You can look at the numbers at some non-AIG-magnet schools, and statistically you can deduce that there is no way that many kids could have scored at or above 98th percentile. In a class of 150 fifth graders, even if 30 of them are AIG identified, it is exceedingly unlikely that over 20 of them would meet the 98%tile benchmark. Clearly, that school is giving more if it's students a chance to participate.
Thanks for clarifying
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 14:39 — nmoskalI guess bottom line I take issue with the concept that two students with similar scores should end up on different pathways depending on whether they have an advocate with enough clout and/or to what extent their school leadership adheres to guidelines. I guess the real question is how many in the 98+ exist.
Well...
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 14:58 — Bob_SconceIf you don't advocate for your kids in the schools, nobody else will.
It's a big district. Big districts do a lousy job of treating students as individuals. That's why parents have to get involved.
I am not talking about me personally
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 15:37 — nmoskalI am talking about the kids whose parents don't know how the system works, are too intimidated or don't have the needed level of respect where necessary, etc.
I hear what you are saying but some of this plays out at the school level not just district. There are variances from school to school before you even get down to individuals within a school.
Oh I know...
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 17:26 — Bob_SconceThat was a generic "you." I agree that there are variances, and cannot defend them, except to say that we shouldn't be surprised by that in a district with 164 schools. McDonalds has mastered the process of having its fries be exactly the same in each of its stores; WCPSS has not mastered that in each of its schools.
where..
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 12:05 — JSBinNCis the data - where do you see the numbers? (sorry if posted elsewhere - I can't locate...)
where
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 14:27 — nmoskalNot sure about those particular numbers but the students per school for 5/6 info is available on the wcpss site under BOE then ED task force. Handout from mtg at Moore Sq I think.
thanks!
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 15:16 — JSBinNCgot it.
As to principals shifting tracks
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 00:11 — FSandYOUI think that would be the parents call as to if they would want that. You can bet they'd throw the program onto track 2, the armpit of year round, and therefore I doubt many would be interested.
With your comment on transferring out of tracks after each quarter, who exactly do you think would support that ridiculous idea? Principals aren't going to want the headache and parents certainly don't want a revolving track door. Where's the stability in any of that?
Not the YR kind of track
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 06:41 — RWTBut the option for a family to get out of the super-advanced math track if it is crushing their child. That track.
I can hardly follow this new
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 13:47 — klanders65I can hardly follow this new math sequence explanation. It is just so complicated. Why did they start the Compacted 5/6 and not tell anyone, but go on and on when caught--saying how it is only right, etc. etc. And now they are going to end it? What is the plan? And what are these decisions based on?
To answer Bob, the EVAAS teacher effectiveness would be based on several (I think 3 or more) previous years averaged together.
Question Re: Value-Add
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 21:29 — Bob_SconceOn the surface, the information about the performance of "below," "NDD" and "above" teachers seems critical, and parents should be fighting tooth and nail to find out which teachers their kids are assigned to. Heck, other schools should be fighting tooth and nail also, if only to find out who to recruit. [WCPSS should want to know, if only to find out who to pay to stay and who to push out.]
But, here's a question: Is the value-add measurement determined based on the target year? In other words, do they look at a teacher, say "Hey, you did well with your class this year. You are now an 'above' teacher. And, oh look, students in your class between the 70th & 80th percentile did really well this year. That must be because you're an 'above' teacher."? That's clearly circular reasoning -- you're an above teacher because your kids do well, and your kids do well because you're an above teacher. The way around that is to use one year's results to determine status, and then measure against the following year's performance.
The other complaint I see coming will be along these lines: "All the 'above' teachers are in low-poverty schools. So, the reason their students do well is because of the poverty level, not because the 'above' teacher is there." Is this true? Do "above" teachers do markedly better regardless of the poverty level of their school?
those are good questions
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 22:48 — snordoneI know Charlotte looked at teacher effectiveness across all schools 2 years ago and it was in their paper, but I seem to remember that they were spread out across the district. I don't' know if Wake has done it.
i can only tell you what I know about teaching from personal experience at work, those who are good are consistently good. Good teachers have an off day, but not an off year. And the makeup of the class, while it varies from year to year, does not turn a good teacher bad. Teaching is both an art and a learned skill, and you have to want to do well in order to do well.
I am worried
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 20:45 — snordonethat the significance of this got lost on everyone. For the first time in WCPSS history staff acknowledged that children perform well when there is an effective teacher at the front of the room. ALL children - even minority children, even ED children. This is a huge turning point for this system and our community as a whole. The adults are taking responsibility, we are no longer blaming the demographics of a child or a school for our failure to educate all children.
teacher quality
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 21:30 — turnerk1It disturbs me that a large majority of the children that must be considered at risk for failing, since they were borderline for being put into the class at all, were placed with teachers who have a record of not doing that well with their students. I would think that students who were borderline should have been placed with the most competent teachers. But, all too often, it is the new teachers, or the less competent teachers, who are given the most difficult kids.
more info
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 16:35 — NC4kidscheck out www. turnonccmath.com Those hexagonal charts were cool looking. Another website referred to in the meeting is www k12center.org hope that helps
Question for Keung or anyone in the know...
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 16:31 — midtownmomAre they changing the name of the courses for high school next year? Would my 8th grader who is currently in Algebra 1 be taking Geometry or Common Core Math 2 in 9th grade?
HS course
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 16:40 — NC4kidscheck out page 4 and 5 (the numbers in the top right hand side written in on those handouts attached at end of story). Looks like your child will continue on the current path and take Geo in 9th and Alg 2 in 10th (supplemented with Common Core Standards if not introduced previously). Also, in 2014-5 there will be 'nationalized' assessments... supposively on-line, but let's take one thing at a time!
Thanks for the info.
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 17:56 — midtownmomI had trouble reading the handouts sideways so I didn't get that far. I feel like kids my childs age have been in a huge experiement with Trailblazers in elementary and now a change in high school. I personally think that this change will not be positive but I'll keep an open mind. I don't like the idea of mixing up math concepts. My child was taught three different ways to multiply in 4th grade and the teacher wondered why she didn't master the concept of mulitiplication. Maybe because they spent about a day on each kind throughout the year and then went on to different concepts every few days. They never took the time to really drill in any particular thing, so they learned a little about many things and never mastered any. That's kind of how I see the core concept change.
Yup....
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 18:14 — Bob_SconceTrailblazers was an utter abomination and an excellent example of why we should be very skeptical of anything new that comes out of the Education Ivory Tower. A mistake like that can have long-ranging consequences on an entire generation of kids. I'm guessing that your kids caught up; what happens with all the kids who didn't?
Yes, my kid caught up...
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 09:04 — midtownmombut not because of the math curriculum in school, because I had to re-teach some of the most basic concepts. Thank goodness she had a third grade teacher who didn't follow Trailblazers and who made sure her kids didn't leave her class without knowing the multiplication tables forwards and backwards. The vast majority of the kids in forth grade were not so lucky.
Some Of The Basics....
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:00 — JanisTangoare not being handled in ES school anymore My husband is tutoring a girl in advanced math in middle school that doesn't know her multiplication tables above the 5s. He said because of this one issue she is having a hard time keeping up. I'm all for getting kids where they need to be, but we have got to make sure the basics are still being taught. Spelling is another that doesn't get the focus anymore. I guess the attitude is MS Word spell checker will take care of it.
This girl
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:21 — NWRaleighMomshould not be in advanced math class. I have no problem with how much time is being spent on multiplication, etc. I wish school taught students how to think.
Why not?
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:45 — Bob_SconceIf learning her multiplication tables correctly will allow her to do well in the class, then work with her on multiplication tables. The fact that the school system failed her in the past doesn't excuse its continuing to fail her in the future.
Personal responsibility?
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:17 — NWRaleighMomI am not a great fan of the current math curriculum but I don't think it is fair to blame the System in that particular case. Of course, I don't know the individual student and her elementary teachers.
So...
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:46 — Bob_SconceProblem isn't the current math curriculum -- it's the Trailblazers curriculum, that was dropped a few years ago. Basically, it had this circular approach to math: you start learning a little bit about multiplication, then switch to something else, then something else, then circule back to multiplication, then switch to something else, then something else, then back to mutliplication. At each step, you learn a little more "about" multiplication. But, there was never a real solid place where you focused on learning your times tables.
It this case, the fact that the girl didn't know her times tables backwards and forwards should have been picked up well before 6th grade. It should not have been a case of "I wonder why she's having problems. Let's get a tutor. Oh, look, the tutor found out that she doesn't know her times tables." That's the big place that the system failed her. At minimum, at the end of 5th grade, her teacher should have told her parents "Look. Your kid doesn't know her times tables. That WILL hurt her in math next year. Here's the website for times tables worksheets. You should have her do one every night over the summer until she has them all down pat, and can do 100 random problems in 5 minutes. If you don't, she'll be in trouble come the fall."
But, of course, I also don't know this situation either and am probably just projecting my own biases. Since I have a degree in math, I have pretty strong opinions about what happens to it when people with degrees in education get ahold of it.
It's a systemic problem
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 14:42 — garnergradI don't think it's a Trailblazers problem or a personal responsibility issue. I think it's a systemic problem. There is no standard for "fluency" of math facts. Third graders do timed math tests until they "meet the standard" of however many problems correct in 5 minutes. Once this skill is mastered it is totally ignored in future math classes. Most schools don't continue to do the timed practice tests. Then, because times tables don't get practiced, kids don't remember them. As far as the kids are concerned, learning ended with "mastery".
Parents are assuming the schools are on top of this and that skills are being maintained in class- they have no idea. Teachers are so convinced that "rote" practice is bad, they don't insist kids practice this. Routine timed math tests to keep skills sharp would totally solve this problem but that's considered "unfair" to kids who don't take timed tests well, or to high achieving kids who think they know it all already. There is no standard for "computational efficiency"- I asked repeatedly. How well do you have to know math facts to succeed later? Nobody knows. Schools just don't work on it because they aren't accountable for it. You can't get automaticity of math facts without drilling. Because schools think drilling is very bad, they don't do it and kids continue to lack critcial math skills.
If I had to guess, I'd say at one point this girl did in fact know her times tables. She forgot. She probably even had a 4 in third grade math. I know lots of parents making this same complaint. It is a widespread problem that is finally getting attention because the new common core math addresses it.
So...
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:04 — Bob_SconceI'm not nearly as worried about spelling as I am about reading -- if a kid reads enough, he will eventually learn how to spell.
The math thing, though, is a real problem. If you can't just spit out the answer to 6x8, you'll never be able to figure out how to factor x^2 + 14x + 48 and you'll never quite get that (x+1)(x-1) = x^2 - 1, because you won't recognize that 6x8 is one less than 7x7.
True....
Thu, 01/26/2012 - 14:27 — JanisTangoI do agree with the comment about reading. Kids do learn how to spell that are able to read well. With that said though, there is also a lot of writing components that are just not being taught. I was talking to a tutor that helps kids get ready for the SAT and she said there is going to be a shift in the writing curriculm in younger grades to focus more on basics in the areas of writing and grammer. Many kids are finding they are not prepared when taking the SAT and other tests. Our family is focusing on a lot of different basics outside the classroom. I see certain things my kids are missing that I personally think will hurt them when the get to the upper grades!
Spelling
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 21:43 — lferreriI have to disagree. I've had a lot of students who could read very well but were poor spellers. (I agree that reading helps, but I don't think it's enough.) I think it's gotten worse as schools have moved away both from teaching spelling and from correcting spelling errors.
I'd be glad to see schools return to teaching the basics of writing and grammar. In sixth grade, our son's teacher assured us that grammar would be taught and even gave us a copy of the book that the class would be using. She then taught no grammar during the entire school year. So I hope this is a real effort to change the curriculum and not just PR.
thanks for info
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 16:23 — NC4kidsThanks for doing a great job reporting on this meeting and scanning in all those documents! I hope that pages 4 and 5 are truly "typical" and it all allows for the Principal to make the best decisions in interests of the student.
Missing Descriptions
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:11 — Bob_SconceKeung -- That cours eguide doesn't show anything for CC Math II or CC Math III. Do you have those?
I assumed it had been
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:17 — KeungHui (author)I assumed it had been included in the packet but I guess not.