>”Traditional math is notthe only solution. One can argue that the best solution is a blended approach so that we can get the best of both styles of learning. I’ll continue to keep an open mind on this one.”
Modern (read: updated) traditional mathematics curricula have already incorporated those aspects of the reform math programs that have merit. (All of them place such materials and interventionist techniques where they belong–at the outer periphery of the instructional agenda, and nowhere near the heart/center.)
Don’t fall for the catchwords/catchphrases like “balanced approach” or “blended approach” when evaluating a K-8 mathematics programs. Such terms are used only to discourage and tamp down the anger of parents who demand accountability in the process by which the subject of mathematics is conveyed to their children, and utility and parental accessibility in the materials and underlying educational philosophy associated with the prevailing mathematics curriculum.
Programs like TERC/Investigations and Everyday Math are not really mathematics curricula. They are merely tools used by biased administrators (such as Ms. Botsford) to perform school district “makeovers”. The goal is to achieve ideological purity in terms of implementing the constructivist academic philosophy.
A recent advance by Ms. Botsford toward her goal was the introduction of so-called “Authentic Assessment” in the high school. The current push toward constructivism in math instruction has been paired with a similar assault on academic instruction in the hard sciences.
As has been mentioned in this space in the recent past, when a K-12 district’s administrators finally train their sights on mathematics and the hard science disciplines in terms of pushing them off the the constructivist cliff, it is usually a sign that the remainder of the academic disciplines have already suffered a similar fate, or are well on their way to doing so.
If we knuckle under and allow Ms. Botsford to place the math and hard sciences “capstone” on her constructivist edifice in Ridgewood, it could take decades for this district to recover its tradition of academic excellence. As it is, and even if we stop Ms. Botsford dead in her tracks and send her packing before the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year (miracles can happen–just ask the football Giants), we’ve already bought ourselves a good eight to ten-year hangover as we withdraw from the current constructivist ‘binge’.
Our own esteemed Sarah Kate Maskin put it well–“C’mon folks.” It’s time to get serious about the size of this problem, and the impact it is having and will continue to have on our district’s reputation.