>I had a conference with my childrens’ Sommerville teachers recently and I asked them to specifically show me what they are teaching the children and what role traditional math instruction (rote memorization and computation) fills in their instruction. I explained that I have spoken with a number of very well respected math educators at secondary and college levels and with one of the most respected astrophysisists in the world about the subject or reform math. These true experts had varying opinions on the value of “reform math”. But, they all agreed on two things:
1) Traditional math MUST be a part of the instruction, particularly at the early grades (1-4 grade) to form a foundation, upon which other instruction can be built.
2) Reform math is not bad, when used as a supplement to traditional math instruction. It is only bad when as an alternative to traditional math instruction, at the expense of traditional math instruction.
As someone who deals with numbers everyday, I also explained that Everyday Math is NOT how math is done in the business world. I was pleased to hear that they agreed 100%. To these teachers’ credit, they go out of their way to ensure that their students are getting traditional math instruction to form a “base” with extra materials, beyond what Everyday Math teaches. Therefore, the real issue is what YOUR childrens’ teachers are teaching, not whether the school uses Everyday Math.
Although I am confident that my children are getting the math instruction I want and I have no problem with the more creative math instruction as an additive curriculum. I am concerned that Somerville has adopted Everday math as its official curriculum. I would be much more comfortable if the school’s position was that Everyday Math is clearly a “supplement” to the core curriculum.
>To these teachers’ credit, they go out of their way to ensure that their students are getting traditional math instruction to form a “base” with extra materials, beyond what Everyday Math teaches. Therefore, the real issue is what YOUR childrens’ teachers are teaching, not whether the school uses Everyday Math.
teacher roulette because the administration (Botsford) is providing such poor tools in mathematics for them
what if the teacher you get is not “into” mathematics
what happens?
they follow the materials – and when thats Everyday Math or TERC2 or CMP2
you get what your experts are stating you do not want
it is why the materials matter
sorry teachers but it is true, not all of you like math
just as not all of you like science
just as not all of you like history
just as not all of you like language arts
it is why good materials are needed
it is what we pay for in our taxes
it is what is NOT being delivered by Botsford and her newly converted pawn, Interim Brennan
>What does the pricipal of Sommerville say about this?
>Yes, it depends on your Somerville teacher. Dr. Browne has stated that reform math is being used with traditional math in a “balanced approach”, which is true, but I’m seeing the ratio change. I’d like to know where the traditional math texts are. They’re certainly NOT at Somerville (okay, maybe they’re in the basement). If you’ve seen them, let me know. What I’ve seen in past years, since the implemtation of reform math at Somerville, are teachers copying “traditional” worksheets from days gone by. This year, I’ve seen almost no traditional math. I’ve spoken to one of my children’s teachers and Everyday Math will be the primary math utilzed in that classroom this year. We at Somerville are on a very slippery slope.
Recent editions of traditional math texts have incorporated the best concepts of the reform math. Why not just use the revised traditional math? Now that’s math for ALL children.
Bottom line, though, is that your child will get CMP2 in BFMS so it makes very little difference what happens in elementary school. The entire reform math experiment needs to be stopped. The sooner the better.
>Bottom line, though, is that your child will get CMP2 in BFMS so it makes very little difference what happens in elementary school.
It makes a ton of difference. A child with a solid K-5 foundation of mathematics (adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, fractions, and the algorithms) has a better chance of continuing on mathematically in middle school that a child that has been told its ok to draw a picture, use a calculator, memorized the lattice method, and only met friendly fractions.
Because a child with a real K-5 foundation, can be put into the upper track of mathematics at BF – and that group of students IS NOT having its time, brain power, and math hour wasted with CMP2 games, discovery, group work, and content lite approach to middle school math.
>Both of my sons used “Everyday Math” at Somerville over ten years ago. Both of them were A students at the high school and earned top scores on their SAT’s. Reform math is not an “experiment” as far as I am concerned.
>and as the somerville parents are noting — somerville may have Everyday Math curriculum in the classrooms but teachers WERENT necessarily using it
thats the equivalent argument out of travell of first grade parents with that one teacher (we know which one) saying – but i like the math at travell
that teacher wasnt using TERC
good grief.
>7:22 – sorry, but I firmly disagree. I’m living the BFMS CMP2 experiment now. My student came out of elementary school with an A+ track record in traditional math and a strong showing in Continental Math. CMP2 relies heavily on language skills and language based assessments for advanced math classes. Good as he is at math (he receives A’s even with CMP2), it was his language skills that, according to a long discussion I had with Dr. Ives, that prohibited him from going into advanced math (where only traditional math is taught — kinda backwards logic, huh). Dr. Ives noted that demonstrated math ability was not an overly important factor and that reform math has a bias against boys, particularly the younger ones in a grade (like my son) whose language skills may need more time to develop. So, according to Dr. Ives, math ability alone won’t get your child into advanced math when reformed math/language-based/gender-biased assessments are utilized in the selection process.
My son is bored with CMP2. He’s lost his love of numbers. Why should he have to teach other students math. He’s ready to move on after the first example but the group can’t move on until everyone has “discovered” a solution.
Worst yet, he showed a dramatic decline in math proficiency after one year of CMP2 (yet he received A’s). His TerraNova scores at the beginning of 6th grade were outstanding – – – his NJASK scores at the end of the year were pathetic. He dropped 60 points from 5th grade to 6th grade – one year of CMP2. (This low score was not available when the decisions for advanced placement were made.) While I realize these results may not have a direct cause/effect relationship to CMP2, I believe they demonstrate a strong correlation.
>The reason for the term “balanced approach” is used in our educrats’ lexicon of spin is because they know parents want traditional math. However, we have already paid for fuzzy math and to justify its purchase, teachers must use it. Besides it dove tails nicely with their misguided feminist agenda for our society.
To tell parents that it is supplemented with traditional math or only used as a supplement to traditional math is oh so disingenuous.
If the district was using Singapore or Saxon math, in any capacity, we would be paying for it as required.
So the truth is – nothing is getting subsidized with your taxes except for the Ridgewood Public School system. They don’t care that they are producing a generation of “illiterate” children in the hard science of mathematics. The end justifies the means and in this case it is their belief in reform math and its socio-political agenda.
>Bottom line is—-
REGINA’S GOTTA GO.
>I think the problem is that only two schools had TERC and it’s hard to get parents from the other schools to join the bandwagon against TERC. Now that it is infiltrating more schools, more parents will become involved in ridding our schools of this cancer called TERC.
>TERC and Everyday Math are just symptons of what is ailing the district.
The problem lies within the policy making and makers of the district curriculum.
A complete house cleaning is needed and waiting to spring will only make the patient sicker.
And the incumbent Board of Education members need to face they have not been the representatives of the district parents.
They have been enablers; allowingf the disease to mutate unchecked.
The two new members to the BOE need to bring an end to that enabling.
Bombace and Brogan. Do not vote for enablers. Vote for ending it.
>To the mother who allowed her son to be placed according to an assessment from Dr. Ives, I truly feel sorry for you. In my opinion, Ives has tried to push down male children in this district, from middle school all the way through the high school. I believe she was on some sort of power trip, and arbitrarily made up rules and criteria as she went along. All I can say is that we’re delighted she’s leaving Ridgewood, and hope that she hasn’t caused any irreparable harm during her time here. My advice to this mother, work hard to get your kid back into the class you believe is right for him – he’s young and it’s not too late. Good luck!
>Thank you 9:52. I was surprised that Dr. Ives was so open about the bias of the assessments; maybe because she was leaving? We’ll never know.
I have just begun to homeschool him using Saxon math in the hopes that the next placemement assessment (end of 8th grade) will yield more positive results for him. I believe this is critical as he leans heavily towards science and engineering in his interests.
>It sounds like you’re doing the right thing in preparing your son to be reassessed. The good news is that there is a great person coming in to fill the position of math supervisor who has worked in the district before and is very well respected. Let him know how hard your son has worked this year and hopefully he’ll be put back in a place that will be challenging and stimulating for him. I’ve learned that we really have to advocate for our kids to insure they’re getting the most out of our school system. Good luck!
>What boils my blood is that the # 1 math person openly admits that there is a bias against males in the curriculum and is completely comfortable with it. Who’s the sicko here? I think this approach should qualify as a hate crime against our boys. Their unqualified dislike of our boys also harms our girls because the girls aren’t being taught math either. We all lose. How long to our boys have to wait for their language skills to catch up the the girls? Most developmental psychologist would venture that boys never really “catch up” to girls verbal skills. Most husbands would agree- sorry, couldn’t resist.
>Absolutely agree – it’s a joke really.
>Here are three solutions to all you the concerned people…..
1 – get a teaching degree and homeschool your kids if you can do better….
2 – find a job or a hobby to occupy your useless time….
3 – move somewhere else!
>To 9:43am…why the nasty attitude? If you’re on this blog, you must have some “useless time” yourself. Putting our heads together to try to solve issues with the current math curriculum for the benefit of our kids is hardly wasted time. If you don’t have a child in the Ridgewood public schools, get off this thread unless you have something worthwhile to contribute.
>9:43 AM –
Gee people want a better education for their children and your mindless response in our representative republic is to proclaim, “move somewhere else!”
How tolerant of you.
Are you a BOE political mercenary or just a social slut?
>9:43am is a mental midget …
homeschool — I would GLADLY fo it IF I GOT TO KEEP THAT PORTION OF MY PROPERTY TAX portioned for the public schools
get a teaching degree – I’m one up on you there Charlie. I can teach at the college level.
find a job – already have one but find myself having to have a second job of overseeing ignorance passing as intellect spewing from the mouths of administrators and blind supporters
find a hobby – have a few of those already too, do you need a suggestion for one?
move somewhere else — you really are a dolt … if it was so easy a solution to pack up and move, parents in schools with dumb dumb math would do so readily … it is also why the educational establishment fights vochers and choice – because then parents could EASILY sink schools with extreme approachs by exercising CHOICE … then what would the educrats of a school (like say TRavell) do? gee, most of the surrounding parents do not want to attend here because of issue X or Y or Z …
market driven would force the educrats to MEET the needs of their consumers RATHER THAN insist on the consumer taking what it BELIEVES is the need
sorry charlie, but your 9:43am post is all washed up
(as a note, I am using the name Charlie as in Charlie from the tuna commercial .. and not speaking to Charlie O’Reilly .. cause I don’t know who posted at 9:43am)
>9:43 you’re just a jerk. we pay for this pathetic math and we are entitled to advocate for a better program. what a jerk.
>blah, blah, blah!
You really got me good there! Let’s see. I’m a mental midget, a jerk, and, oh yeah, my favorite, Charlie the Tuna! I haven’t been called names like that since the third grade. You know, the grade where our kids don’t learn long division.
You all are so uptight, relax a bit.
And FYI, you don’t need a teaching certificate to teach at the college level. Any Joe Schmo with a college degree can do that. So basically, you’ve just been knocked off your high horse!
>9:43am…
You’ve missed one point, some of us are already teaching our kids math at home because the school system is not. Most adults can teach their kids the basic fundamentals of K-5 math, it’s really not that hard. That’s why this is an issue, math is a very straight forward subject so it’s easy for parents to identify a problem.
The job reference and move reference were just juvenile; you should try to be more specific about your like or dislikes of the parents who are advocating for a change.
>9:43 – With my advanced degrees I could teach (this is probably representative of most parents in Ridgewood)
I work and I AM homeschooling with respect to math and grammar while paying a small fortune in taxes. I moved here 15 years ago and paid a premium for the excellent schools – – – I shouldn’t now have to move because THIS BOE has no (fill in the blank).
I’ll continue to post examples of CMP2 math on this blog so those of you without students in these classes will understand my concern.
>you don’t need a teaching certificate to teach at the college level
but with a teaching certificate it does not mean YOU CAN teach at the college level
K-8 elementary teacher could not handle the CONTENT of college level
and sadly it seems with the embracing of TERC and CMP, they are expected to not handle the CONTENT of K-8 either
my guess from the tone of “SOMEONE” is its that dolt MPG again …
to the other poster — SCAN IN THE HOMEWORK and send it to PJ
>I agree that it’s probably MPG – someone who has nothing better to do than write in from halfway across the United States and deride the parents of Ridgewood for stepping up and advocating for their children, their public schools, and their community. Having seen a few of his other posts, it appears that his posting on this thread is indeed his modus operandi. MPG – get a life and get the hell off this blog – you have nothing constructive whatsoever to add other than your own snarky comments. Isn’t there a more productive use of your time in your own area of the country??? Get lost.
>I was told to read these comments from another parent. As a Ridgewood parent, taxpayer and Ridgewood alumni I was expecting so much more in terms of constructive conversation. I also have advanced degrees and a successful job, but I do not feel the need to put down teachers or their intellect. TO the person who wrote that K-8 teachers could not handle the “content” of college mathematics, “Give me a break!”. Most Ridgewood teachers have their masters plus additional degrees. If you have such a problem with what the teachers can “handle” then maybe you should advocate for their continuuing education so that our children will reap the benefits. My children have done extremely well in math, in college, in graduate school and now in life. If there is such a problem now with the math program then let us try to think of a more positive way to fix it than all of this sniping at eachother.
>4:30 – Not for nothing, but it’s a whole new world out there since your tots strolled the halls of Ridgewood’s grade schools. I can understand your initial reaction to these conversations, but I would hope you take the time to drill down through the issues.
>Not for nothing, but if the world has changed so much since my “tots” strolled the halls that you are telling me the teachers in this district can’t handle a college math class then I think you need your head examined. I think I will drill through the issues, but not by reading these so called “conversations”. See you at the next board meeting!
>hey 4:30pm
one snipes after repeatedly offering the constructive criticism and have it ignored and rebutted with nothing more than ideology.
as for the CONTENT comment
an Education degree does not rank on the same ladder as a PHd in Mathematics or Physics
and that is not a swipe at the teachers
its about the CONTENT of the material
drill down into the depths of this “debate”
no one is listening
good teachers are having their hands tied by ideologues (principals receive their marching orders or in the case of one, hasnt even taken the time to learn the CONTENT of TERC)
parents (yup, I am a parent) come here to complain and snipe and be angry
because everywhere else in Stepfordville Ridgewood you are not allowed to show that – it would be considered oh so terrible
and
I would pay another arm and a lef to get what your kids got when they went through the system rather than what is being provided today
ITS THE MATERIALS AND LACK OF ACADEMIC CONTENT IN THE SYSTEM
and that lies at the feet of the curriculum head
>Get a grip
>Hey all, just because you CAN teach at the college level doesn’t mean a thing! Don’t talk to me about teaching unless you DO teach. End of discussion. As I’ve said before here, it’s one thing to “tutor” your kid at the kitchen table, it’s an entirely different thing to teach a classroom of 30 learners, all of different ability levels (Yes, Virginia, here in Ridgewood, we have students who STRUGGLE, don’t do homework, have learning issues, etc…) and compete with their sports schedules, their enabling parents, their cell phones, their home computers, their nannies, their divorced parents… AND THE LIST GOES ON. A PhD in doesn’t mean that you can educate anyone, it simply means that you have a higher education in any given subject area. We’ve all had brilliant college professers who couldn’t convey their knowledge nor motivate their students to learn, they simply couldn’t connect.
>To k-12 teacher (with, I am assuming, a masters in education?)
“just because you CAN teach at the college level doesn’t mean a thing!”
ok. I have stopped laughing at this to finally answer you.
Just 30 kids?
How about in front of 75 kids (thats the starting point).
Then in groups of about 15-20 for lab work.
Then it becomes even smaller as you have to offer up office time. Yes we professors have teaching assistants but some of us do offer the help ourselves. And some of us do guide the teaching assistant as well.
Consistency and coherency in presentation of materials is important, wouldn’t you agree?
“Sitting around the kitchen table” is the easiest time – one on one, with little disruptions. It is why research is finding tutoring works (one on one) and why research has found smaller classroom sizes can improve student achievement.
30 kids in one Ridgewood classroom. Very sad considering the affluence of Ridgewood. Very sad, indeed, as I beleive (correct me if I am wrong) Ridgewood does have policy regarding maximum students per classroom.
Oh to teach to just one would be a dream – and I live it offering tutoring (besides the work as a professor which for the record does include acutal teaching along with research work).
Tutoring is very rewarding. I suggest it for anyone feeling jaded in their teaching profession. It provides renewal. And I also suggest tutoring pro-bono as I do.
But in the University, it is quite more than just 30 kids.
“A PhD in doesn’t mean that you can educate anyone, it simply means that you have a higher education in any given subject area. “
Ok. I am done laughing again. I guess all of us PhDs at Universities are not educating any of our graduating students. Thank you for this clarification. I will be sure to pass along your tidbit to the parents paying the University $30k per year for the professors to NOT educate their son or daughter.
“We’ve all had brilliant college professers who couldn’t convey their knowledge nor motivate their students to learn, they simply couldn’t connect.”
This is oh so very true. As in any profession some are more capable than others. Some are not very good at all with what they do. But your statement also applies to those in K-12. Even in your ranks, there are those that are just not very good at teaching. And sadly, in your ranks there are those lacking in content knowledge. It is why I believe texts and references books and other materials are quite important and should be at the fingertips of all of the students. Wouldn’t you agree?
We both must agree on this – tenure and unionization offers much protection than a typical white colored or non-unionized postion.
In the ways of teaching, my philosophy is that I can reach some kids but never ALL of the kids. For me to say I can reach ALL of the children is arrogant. Wouldn’t you agree?
But perhaps here is where we differ. What I do (and here is my extra effort) is I work to recognize the methods that those kids need. And if I change my approach for them, and it works that is wonderful. If I change my approach and it is still not working, then I recognize it is me and I work to get them the help they need. I then support that help. This requires much work in a large classroom environment.
My basic philosophy is that in teaching, the failure lies first with the teacher when the teacher is given a capable and willing student. But that is just me.
Continue to post, but really are you trying to say that only “teachers” can teach?
Only teachers can teach because they studied pedagogy in their education schools?
IF that is your premise and point of your post, I absolutely disagree.
>To the “parent” who was told to read the blog…
Many Junior High and High School teachers may have the qualifications perhaps to teach at a junior college level, but the K-5 teacher certainly does not.
There are no requirements in the state of New Jersey for teachers to take pure Mathematics classes, such as Calculus, in order to get their teaching degrees. Instead they take classes in “How to Teach Math in K-5” which is distinctly different than college level calculus, probability or statistics.
I’m not saying elementary school teachers should be able to teach calculus but they are not on the same mathematical thinking level as some parents who might be chemist, engineers, actuaries, PhDs in physics, chemistry or math or other professions which do heavy math thinking.
However, that point being made, this debate is not about teacher but curriculum. TERC and CMP leave so many holes that a young teacher may not know enough to fill them. Those young teachers would also benefit from a more rigorous curriculum with more content just as well as our children. The teachers are dealt a bad hand with TERC since they need to make copies of other materials in order to fill in the blanks left by TERC and CMP. (They have to do all this supplementing.)
The teacher training issue that you suggest makes me believe you are not a parent, but within the district.
The teacher training offered for TERC and CMP2 do not benefit the teacher’s career goals. A college level math course that the district paid for would help them to reach the highly qualified status. Those true college credits could help them to a higher pay grade. These “fluff” one day seminars given by Montclair State do not benefit the teachers.
>Speaking of laughing, I just finished that after reading the self-proclaimed superstar grad school professor’s claim that he has it tougher than an elementary teacher.
Try 70 kids? Who are you trying to kid? Your “70 kids” are actually 70 adults who CHOOSE to take your course. Do you have to interupt your teaching several times a day to remind students to sit still? or to stay in their seats? or to stop talking? How about cleaning up throw-up, or urine, or spilled food and drinks, comfort a crying child who for one reason or another is having a breakdown? I don’t think so. You teach one subject area for one 50 minute period at a time to several classes. Your instruction is not modified for different learning styles nor different academic levels. You lecture and if they get it, great. And if not, they fail. Case closed. Elementary teachers have to teach math, reading, writing, science, social studies, social development, emotional development, second languages, and basically how to function in a classroom, all in one day. We need to modify our teaching to challenge the higher students while taking things slower for the strugglers. So not only are we teaching our grade level, we are also teaching at a grade level below ours and one that is higher. Please don’t forget that all the while we have to deal with, and please, their parents as well. You at the college level do not have to worry about any of this.
I am by no menas saying that my job as an elementary teacher is harder, or better, or more rewarding than that of a college level professor, but I would never even try to compare one to the other. Please stop trying to make yourself out to be better than any other because you choose to teach adults and we at the K-12 level choose to teach children. Basically, you are trying to campare apples and oranges, which at the college level, you should know you can’t.
>Bravo and well said, 4:03 (the elementary school teacher). I think there’s no more important work out there than educating our children, and I cannot even imagine the patience you must need to get through every day. My children had a wonderful (and recent) experience in a Ridgewood elementary school, due in no small part to the excellent and dedicated teaching staff. Say what you will about Botsford, Ives and the rest of them, but our elementary school teachers are beyond reproach.
>4:03 missed the entire point – the two were arguing over whether or not only a k-12 educator can “teach”
and being able to teach extends far beyond those that carry around a teaching certificate
that seemed to be the arguement transpiring.
4:03’s post turned it into (once again) a woe is me the teacher in Ridgewood NJ
>4:03- thank you for illustrating my post…I am the teacher who mentioned my class of 30 and got JUMPED on by a college professor with 75 “kids” who- like you said- are young adults! So different from a classroom of young ones or (gasp!) middle schoolers, many with ADD, learning disabilities, 504 plans, and such.
And NO, my masters is NOT in education, College Professor, it is in my content area. I don’t know why that would make a differerence to you though.
Also, you imply that you and only you change your methods according to what you students need…. I do this every day every class period.
Do YOU have to give test re-takes??? We do…… I think it’s crazy, but we have to. Extra work for me (according to this blog, I can’t complain though) and the student learns what??? That if they forget to study or choose not to, they can still come and have another chance.
So don’t compare your job and mine.
>Bravo, bravo elementary school teacher! Hear the cheers in the sidelines!!! We are rooting for you!
>Dear 10:29 AM. You questioned if I was within the district and not a parent. Sorry to disappoint, but I am a Ridgewood resident, former Ridgewood grad and parent of two Ridgewood graduates. I do know a bit of what the teachers have to go through to be qualified here in Ridgewood after living here for so many years. I think the post after yours clearly states the pressures of teaching. Even your own post describes the qualifications one needs. What I still am baffled by is what the problem actually is. The Ridgewood education system proves every year what a excellent job it is doing with all the graduates going on to fine institutions. The proof is in the pudding as they say. I am finished posting here on this site, but good luck to all!
>Why is it that the reform math debate must always swerve into an exchange of arguments about the fitness/non-fitness of the district’s teachers?
The real debate is about the preposterous reform math materials the district insists on purchasing and foisting upon all the teachers, good, bad, and average alike.
For years now Ridgewood parents have learned and worked the ropes sufficiently to maneuver their children into the classes of those teachers who have achieved unofficial “great teacher” status via good word of mouth, and to prevent their children from becoming stuck in the classrooms of those few teachers known to be “mailing it in” until they can afford to retire. This will never change, regardless of any adjustments to the content or the direction of the curriculum.
Can’t we stipulate that there are plenty of great teachers in the Ridgewood district, and get about the business of removing the impediments such teachers face in guiding their students through an already challenging course of study?
It has been said that we can “say what we will” about Botsford, Ives & Company. Obviously, nobody was waiting around waiting for the go-ahead to begin doing this!
Anyone who reads this blog and is aware of any arguments or data in support of B, I & Co.’s curriculum development philosophy should have the courage to engage in this debate. Why not do so when the ability to do so anonymously is not in question?
That said, those who are in favor of the present system try to lay out a defense of their position that amounts to something more than “the results speak for themselves”. IMHO, the results to which they refer are just as likely to be happening in spite of, as opposed to because of, the radical changes being imposed on the district.
So the only way to resolve this dispute is to get into the relevant details (such as the real percentage of students receiving substantial amounts of subject matter tutoring). To date, the district has steadfastly refused to do so. The bottom line question is therefore–Why such silence?
>So, I see dissent against TERC is not rare?
We’re having similar problems. Take a look:
https://rvcschoolwatch.blogspot.com/