0 members (),
420
guests, and
40
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,783
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,783 |
She did a 90min workshop for parents, educators and business leaders called "Mathematics and Your Child's Future: The Basics and Beyond." She is very slick and persuasive but I have strong reservations about her methods. She wants to completely axe the teaching of the standard algorithms for doing arithmetic. A lot of her methods sounded really good and enriching and like they would build real understanding of math if taught by a knowledgeable teacher.
It's just that it seems like a huge "if" to me. And I don't think we should throw the standard algorithms out with the bathwater!
I think she is pushing some kind of curriculum and our district honchos seemed quite starry-eyed about her ideas.
Does anybody have experience with this kind of curriculum in the public schools? What were the results? Should I fight this trend? I have a bad feeling about it....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,815
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,815 |
Sounds like reform math to me. Did she mention "Investigations" or "TERC" or "Everyday Math?" There is another but I forget the name.
Dazey
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 830
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 830 |
If you google her, it's not the most positive search, ROFL! http://dartreview.com/issues/1.13.99/nmap.htmlIn her defense, I continue to think a well rounded approach is best. It IS nice to show the why's.....but you simply have to follow that up with algorithms that work, especially if you expect the kid to progress into advanced maths. FWIW, the "experience" part...our school dived head first into Everyday Math, a good program, albeit a little extreme. The first few years were tough. We still use it, but now supplement it with a good bit of "tradition". This combined approach really works well. I still do supplement at home with a little "old school". Maybe DS is as ahead as he is merely because he's so strong in both camps? (Maybe I'm just a great teacher, ) I think that article would make a good argument about why teachers object to standardized testing. It's fun and exciting to help children explore different ideas, getting the right answer isn't the important part for those teachers; it appears many teachers don't even know the right answer. But to pass standardized testing the child must learn the algorithms to get the correct answer, and that can be tedious at times.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,783
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,783 |
Yes, I have googled her and read some pieces by her detractors. I asked several questions at the workshop and she seemed rather defensive, like she was expecting to be attacked.
My concern is that the decision to adopt a particular math curriculum is being made by people who have no expertise in math. They are easily led by slick presentations. I don't see anyone asking the tough questions about how we would actually implement something like this.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,783
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,783 |
Sounds like reform math to me. Did she mention "Investigations" or "TERC" or "Everyday Math?" There is another but I forget the name.
Dazey Our district is considering adopting Everyday Math. I have mixed feelings about it. It could be really good if the teacher knows what she's doing. It could be really bad if she doesn't...
Last edited by Cathy A; 05/28/08 10:24 AM. Reason: too many reallys
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,690 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,690 Likes: 1 |
I found this on my NYC schools website. Strictly copied, I have no knowledge on the subject:
200 mathematicians, including several Nobel laureates, have written to the US Department of Education complaining about reform mathematics. The chairmen of almost every college and university mathematics department in the New York area have written to Klein complaining that the reform programs like TERC and Everyday Mathematics are failing to educate our kids in math so that they can do college work.
The rubber stamp committee that "advised" Klein and Diana Lam (remember her?) on Everday Mathematics did not include anyone with a degree in math or engineering, nor anyone even qualified to teach high school math. Actually, Everyday Mathematics for our kids was the brainchild of the discredited Lam.
TERC and Everyday Mathematics lead students directly to math remediation classes as they enter college. Those classes are bigger than ever since the introduction of NCTM reform math programs. The decline of American mathematics education compared with the rest of the world is directly traceable to these reform programs.
These are the reasons that TERC and Everyday Mathematics are no longer permitted in the public schools of California which now leads the nation in Math education.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,783
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,783 |
Well, I don't know about who is leading (I would be surprised if it were California), but I do know that Everyday Mathematics is on the textbook adoption list so it must be permitted in public schools here in California.
Cathy
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,815
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,815 |
Everyday math was recently removed from the Texas textbook list but only for 3rd grade so far. The teachers were commenting on how horrible it was etc but I'm not sure why the other years were not removed.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,783
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,783 |
It seems like some curricula depend more heavily on the strengths of the teachers, though. I'm not sure I have that much faith in our teachers! Maybe I should give them a chance. Maybe with training they can make this work.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,815
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,815 |
Everyday Math (EM) is very teacher dependent. One of the criticisms I've read is that teacher's say they don't have time to play the games and consider the games fluff. Well, the drill and cementing of concepts are in the games. Also, people tend to lump EM, TERC Investigations and the other one which I can't remember the name, all in one basket. From the critiques I've read, Em is the best of the bunch by far. I've seen the workbook for the one I can't recall the name. It was "Explain in words how you got your answer to 2+1." There was a lot of writing involved so for kids w/ writing or reading issues, math is also an issue. Our district has great test scores but I've heard that the number of kids that are math deficient are increasing. Our district does do lots of fact practice and are also teaching the standard algorithm...well at least my son's teacher is. She doesn't assign nearly as many EM worksheets as homework as the other teachers do. Hers come from somewhere else.
EM is actually very Rightstart-ish. HSers often have trouble w/ RS as well b/c they fail to play the games. As great as Singapore Math is, HSers often post how it didn't work for them, her kid hit a wall etc but then someone will ask the question of whether the kid learned to do math the SM way (ie like the thought bubbles) and the answer is "no, i just handed the kid the workbook and they worked the problems." Even great curriculums are bad in the hands of the wrong teacher due to lack of training or the wrong kid (wrong style of learning).
The problem is that in areas where test scores are rising since EM and TERC were introduced, Kumon and the like have sky-rocketed. So you can't attribute the success to the curriculum. I read a newspaper article from upstate NY where the district asked the parents not to afterschool math for 2 years so they could test the effect of EM. the parents refused...they didn't want to gamble w/ their kids.
The one criticism i hear over and over from my teacher friends is that EM is not good for the low end. The topics change too quickly before they fully grasp it and move on to something else.
Also, in a district that uses EM and the students seem to do well, the teachers use pre-testing to test out of a unit. Supposedly, the pre-tests come w/ the teacher's manuals. I asked about pretesting at DS's school and teacher looked at my like I had 3 heads.
|
|
|
|
|