Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Bridges in Mathematics

We are trying a new charter school this year for 8yo 3rd grader. It's an Expeditionary Learning school, following that model. So far, I'm not wowed but waiting to see more. My biggest worry right now is the math curriculum. They are using Bridges in Mathematics, which is based on using "visual models" to visualize math rather than learning algorithms. The teacher has told my son in no uncertain terms NOT to, say, carry the 1 when adding, although that is what he learned in previous years and was successful at. My worry is that I had last year a son who was successful in math, not brilliant but successful, who got every problem correct in state testing at the end of second grade, and who now is in tears about math every night, can't tell what to do, yells at me that he's "not allowed to do it that way" when I tell him to just do the problem the old way if that works better for him. He also seems less able to explain what he's doing or figure out word problems than he used to.

Anyone out there have experience in Bridges curriculum? And, does anyone have suggestions on how to work around a not-very-successful elementary math curriculum for a smart kid who fights against hard work and has no desire to do "extra" homework?

I have never heard of this type of math program, so I looked it up online and it seems very similar to the Everyday Math that they use at our public school.

I will tell you that I am not a fan of Everyday Math. The objective behind it is to get the kids exposed to the fundamental basics of "higher math" so that when they do get to the grade level to focus on a specific type of math, they are familiar with it (instead of overwhelmed or afraid of it) and have the basic tools to work with.

That being said, IMHO, Everday Math uses horrid algorithms to solve simple math problems and make math so much more complicated then it has to be. When my DD was in 1st grade, I spoke to her teacher about it and she said that they enrich (voluntarily) the Everyday Math with old math strategies (carrying and "bigger bottom borrow"), as well as teach them good old fashioned time tables because if they don't learn these skills proficiently by 4th grade then they will be left behind in the dust from 5th grade on up.

That being said, I found a website that thoroughly explains these algorithms that made it easier for me to help her with her homework and took some of that frustration away from doing the math. I would show her how the Everyday Math program wanted the problem solved and then I would show her the old fashioned way to solve the problem and let her pick and choose the way that she felt most comfortable doing the math.

Thankfully her new 3rd grade teacher this year is on board with the enrichment and allowing the old fashioned math to be used (she said as long as DD shows her work, she will accept any method to achieve the correct answer).

Here is a link to explanation of the algorithms, not sure if this is the same as the Bridge Math or not, but just in case it is, thought I would post it for you.

http://instruction.aaps.k12.mi.us/EM_parent_hdbk/algorithms.html

We use Everyday Math at our school and I think it's a lame program. Periodically, the kids have to write a sentence about how they like math and find it in their every day life. I know they are simply trying to have kids see how math is important, blah, blah, blah, but it seems so simplified to me.
I will say that it is relatively easy to afterschool your kids in math. It's important for kids to get their math facts down well too, which you can do with flashcards or fun games on the computer.
We are actually having my second grader do math facts for multiplication- we did that for our fourth grader in third grade but there are some kids in his second grade class doing it now.
My fourth grader is in our local gifted program in school where they started the year with the fifth grade math book, for fourth grade. He has not learned anything new yet but at least it's something.

I also don't have a lot of respect for EM and other reform/constructivist methods. They're all supposed to teach mathematical concepts, but I think they fail. I understand that many teachers and textbooks don't do a good job of explaining why a standard algorithm like long division works, which puts kids into a position of having to memorize the procedure without understanding it. This is not good. But the solution is to explain why the standard methods work, not just jettison them in favor of other stuff.

From what I've read today, the Bridges program is in this group. This page reviews it briefly and mentions some of the things people criticize about EM, such as lack of emphasis on standard algorithms, group work, etc. The US Department of Education says that none of the studies of Bridges to Mathematics are scientifically sound. This means that the Dep't. of Ed. couldn't come to any conclusions about the effectiveness of the program. IMO, this is a huge red flag, especially because this was 0/18 studies, plus 5 more that didn't even meet their standards for examining them.


I think you have two problems here. If I'm right, teasing them apart might help you solve one or both of them.

The first problem is a bad curriculum. The second one is your son's reaction to it.

I think that one of my parental duties is to teach my kids that sometimes stuff is wrong, even stuff in school. I took this approach with EM with my eldest, and I do the same with my youngest when she gets bogus homework questions. Unless you leave the school or negotiate independent study, this is a way around the bad curriculum.

If my kids were to complain that teacher says I have to do it this way, it's time for me to have a talk with teacher. A good teacher will accept that any correct route to the answer is reasonable. If the teacher won't budge, I might talk to the principal or find a way to explain to my kids that sometimes some ideas are wrong and/or that if the standard methods make the most sense to them, they should use them. I have very strong opinions about the failings of reform/constructivist mathematics, though, so bear this in mind when I say that I wouldn't let a badly designed approach to math damage my kids.

Don't know the Bridges curriculum myself, but the principle behind varied approaches to problem solving with fluid decision making seems like an important skillset. If the only object is to teach addition, subtraction, multiplicate, etc. then a single algorithmic approach seems ok.

But the fluidity, diverse approaches, etc. is great, the small quick decision in approach can really payoff. However, I doubt you can put in a box and sell it en piece. First criterion should be that the teacher has the fluid, creative problem solving in their own natural toolbox.

I read the link Kelly had, and oddly it is very similar to how I explain problems or talk through them with my son. Except any particular explanation is dependent on the problem. 168 + 32... oh hey look two and eight make a ten, so you can do it as 170 + 30. Or 26 * 12 oh a five is close, let's start with 25 which is a quarter so one fourth of 12 is 3, a couple of tens in there, so 300 and add the 12 back for the lonely 1 we dropped earlier to get 312...

Ultimately, I'm feeling skeptical that you can teach creativity dogmatically.

Do you have access to the book? DD doesn't bring her math book home, but I have access to it online. This is helpful with the "I'm not supposed to do it that way!" freakouts. She has a different curriculum, but is frequently expected to do things in a way that is not the standard old-fashioned way.

Bumping this up because it seems our school district is adopting "Bridges in Mathematics" as their elementary math curriculum starting next year. Almost everything I've been able to find about it was posted prior to 2010 and is negative, which is concerning. I've read that it's very visually-based and doesn't provide concrete formulas. But, I'm also assuming that the current CC version may be updated from older versions...

I'd love to hear about any recent experiences.

I couldn't find anything newer, either. One does have to wonder how no usable supportive research was generated in 20-odd years of the first edition, though:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=56

It does appear that the 2nd edition addresses one of the flaws of the 1st, which was the complete absence of practice with standard algorithms, or math fluency.

My kids have had Bridges at one of their schools. They've all moved beyond it now, so my experience is a little dated (but not too far out in time). Our kids were in a very similar-to-EM program prior to Bridges, and our experience with Bridges was that it incorporated Visual Math but was a bit different from EM, not so much wrap-around repetition through the years as EM, and our kids liked it much better.

OTOH, I think the thing that mattered the most across *all* the curriculums my kids had prior to pre-Algebra (which adds up to, I think 4 or more lol!) was the *teacher* and the approach to teaching. When a teacher says you *have* to do it this way, sometimes that was ok, if it was just for the sake of learning that particular method and then the child, once they'd shown they'd mastered that method, was allowed to use whatever method they wanted to (that was legitimate and gave correct answers :)) to solve the particular type of problem. We did have one issue once with one teacher who insisted our dd couldn't use traditional long division to solve long division problems even though she understood the concept and knew how to use the alternative method that the curriculum was teaching. I don't see that as a curriculum issue but instead see it as a teacher inflexibility issue, and that is dependent on the teacher, not the curriculum. We also found that ability to subject accelerate, etc were more school/teacher dependent than curriculum dependent in elementary school, regardless of curriculum.

I'm not sure what to think about the not being able to explain word problems as well as the previous year. Although techniques for solving problems were somewhat different in Bridges/EM/etc than traditional math, the word problems that our kids brought home could mostly have come from any curriculum. I think I'd try to discern if he's having difficulty with the problem due to the method required to solve it, or is it an issue of having difficulty understanding the concept.

Best wishes,

polarbear

Visual-based is the buzz word these days. It's usually code for technology-based, which is a very shallow way to teach math. Charter schools love these programs because they are cheap and teachers don't have to grade homework and quizzes, and they teach to the tests so the students perform well enough to pass standardized tests. Schools are not evaluated by how well advanced learners perform, but by the percentage of students at grade-level. The CCSS and the new math programs are two years behind the traditional math programs. I would be wary of this math curriculum.