>You are forgetting the kids for whom the “reform” math actually helps make math accessible to them. My daughter (RHS grad) would have benefited greatly from this. In fact, I would have benefited from it! Instead, both she and I struggled continuously and eventually just gave up, with little opportunity for alternative ways to learn math concepts. I went through high school with straight A’s in everything, and C’s and D’s in algebra I and algebra II, and that’s it — no geometry, nothing else. Took a basic math class in college to fulfill the requirement. But never really learned. I tried, but teachers simply did not know how to explain it in a way I could actually learn. Now when I read some of the TERC or Everyday Math solutions, they make sense to me! They sound an awful lot like the methods I have figured out for myself! If I had this kind of teaching 30 years ago, I might not have been a “math-hater” all my life.
I know you all are the majority and you obviously have kids who can handle the structure of “old-school” math, but just don’t forget that there ARE kids out there who benefit from a more verbal and conceptual approach. That’s why this stuff was developed in the first place. I guess those kids, like my daughter and I, are expendable?
>how would you have been helped ? you get a better grade but still not learn anything ..hummm nice logic….
>This is a good point, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with grades. People learn differently, and are right-brainers or left-brainers. There are some some no-brainers too. The curriculum should be able to accommodate all types, which, I think, is the way things used to be. I had a horrible time with math in high school. It got worse when I went to business school and had to learn statistics, which presumes knowledge of derivatives and other calculus operations. I could have benefited from a more verbal approach to math. Too late now, though. You want fries with that Big Mac?
>and i guess with your argument those non-verbal folks are now expendable
but really … why not give PARENTS the choice for the kids
you can have TERC or Everyday Math and CMP and Integrated Math
and I’d take houghton mifflin, saxon, singapore, dolcini algebra, …
problem solved
sadly district wont do this as they KNOW they would not be able to justify the little numbers that would actually choose REFORM MATH!
not that the rest of us would mind … because ALL the children’s needs would be served
>sounds like you had crappy math teaching
>As a parent of a current middle school student in Ridgewood I am absolutely disgusted with the math materials being used this year.
I cannot imagine that there is any parent, who has helped their child with their math homework, who finds these materials even remotely acceptable.
They are clearly designed to meet only the needs of the severely mathematically challenged. I have compared the materials to materials used in neighboring towns. Our kids are at least two years behind by the time they get to 6th grade.
The math program in Ridgewood is an absolute disgrace. Because the arrogance of the BoE prevents admission of a mistake, parents must teach their children math outside of school.
If you are not homeschooling your kids in math you are neglecting their education in a big way.
>Look, no one is saying that every child will get it. Those children that don’t get it require outside tutoring or extra help…but there should be no reason to dumb down the entire curiculum and teach to the lowest common denominator because some kids don’t get it.
Keep the bar high using traditional math programs and provide extra help to those that need it….
>but dont you mean you should have gotten a good grade weather you did anything or not?
>10:01
What if “some kids don’t get it” number more than the kids who do? What then?
>this is all silly reform math is not math is bs
this is math 1+2=3 ,people have learned this for thousands of years ,but now our kids in very over privaliged Ridgewood cant ? you must be joking
>What would you think if the schools had taken some of the verbal skills and conceptual thinking out of the course in which you got As? This would certainly help out the math oriented children in those classes. This way everyone can get As and Bs in all classes and learn nothing at all.
>You must not have taken a logic course because you can not get As in everything and Cs and Ds in algebra I and II.
>No schools should teach to the lowest common denominator. That would fail the children at the bottom, bore the children in the middle and distroy the aspirations of the children at the top. You, unfortunately had bad math teachers and your parents needed an intervention. Why didn’t they intervene to better direct the kind of math instruction you were receiving? Don’t understand why, as an A student, it was ok for you to bring home C’s and D’s with no intervention whatsoever.
>I understand what this poster is saying, I too had horrible math grades through RHS and took the easiest math class in college to fulfill the requirement. However, having had 3 kids exposed to TERC
at Travell, I can’t see the benefits. My children are still struggling with their math facts – despite the fact that they have a tutor. They simply are not teaching the basic math facts at Travell. 3 x 2 is always going to be 6 whether you are taught with reform math or singapore math. Unfortunately with TERC you don’t need to know that off the top of your head – you can use your calculator. Makes it challenging as you get to the upper grades and have to show your work while doing a problem. I believe RHS is ripe for reform math AFTER the kids have been given a solid foundation of basic math facts. That way maybe the kids who would benefit from a more verbal approach would become math lovers and of course the kids who excel in math would be taking more challenging classes.
>The schools are just as bad at teaching anything verbal as they are at teaching math. New teachers, especially, have very poor grammar and limited vocabularies. They can’t tell the difference btw an adverb and an adjective, constantly misuse words like “their,” use “that” when it should be “who,” don’t have a clue about “whom,” and are hopelessly lost when it comes to punctuation. Administrators are no better at these basic skills.
These are the products of an “education school” education, and they are woefully lacking in education. How ironic.
>11:44
Yes, my parents should have intervened. But in the 60s, 70s and even the 80s, things wre pretty much left up to the experts at the schools. It wasn’t until the 60s generation–which always questioned authority and the validity of institutions–had children of their own, did we begin to wonder whether the education experts really knew what they were talking about. It’s a very confusing and complex situtation and there are no easy answers. Which makes your responsive whine of “Why didn’t your parents do more” seem so superficial.
>The only whining on this thread seems to have come from 1:47 who started this post. If only he or she could’ve had dumbed down math in school, she could have gotten straight As.
>When I was in the first grade (1964) and missed a month of school due to an illness, my parents hired a tutor. So, I am not buying into the argument that the times made a difference as to how parents helped their struggling children in school.
When I was a freshman in high school, there was an algebra class for children who had difficulty comprehending the subject.
The teacher was wonderful with her “less than gifted” math students. She made learning algebra fun and easy to understand. No one in her class got less than a B due to her expertise in teaching.
It was straight algebra, pure and simple (no pun intended). There was no fuzzy math at our high school. Instead of dumbing down the math for us, the principal made sure we had a teacher who could actually teach us.
So, it goes back to the teacher. For there were other teachers who taught the same subject at the same pace.
Our teacher’s methods facilitated an environment were learning was fun. And the reason it was fun, was because we became very good at doing algebra.
>(From original poster). I’m not saying everything should be “dumbed down” (gee, thanks) for those of us who need a verbal approach to math. But the option needs to be there…I would like an acknowledgment that the “reform” approaches are not all bad for all people. Some of the rhetoric on this blog, that the reform math is “evil” and somehow dangerous for all, practically radioactive, is extreme. I get it, you don’t want this to be the only math for all kids. But stop making it sound like Satan’s own curriculum.
And I didn’t mean to focus on the grades I got in hs — I was just making the point that I was a fairly talented student at English, History, Foreign Language, even Science, but could not ever perform in algebra. I’m not saying today that I wish I got A’s in math (by lowering the standards)…I’m saying I wish I LEARNED math. Which I did not, not really.
And as for why my parents didn’t intervene…who knows? That was a long time ago…different era…it has never occurred to me to blame them.
>Every child, unless they are mentally handicapped, can learn algebra, geometry and calculus.
The X factor is the teacher.
A truly good teacher can teach any child.
An average teacher can only teach those with a propensity to understand math inherently or those who study really hard.
A bad teacher can only teach those children who are exceptionally gifted and don’t need a teacher to understand the subject matter at all.
So once again, it comes down to the quality of the teacher.
>”Every child, unless they are mentally handicapped, can learn algebra, geometry and calculus.”
That has to be one of the most ignorant statement ever written. A child’s inability to learn calculus does not presuppose a mental handicap. I don’t think you really know that you’re talking about.
Are you saying that the previous poster is mentall handicapped? I certainly hope not, but would not be surprised given the horrendous arguments and rhetoric put forth on this blog.
Every child is different – some are strong readers and some are not. Some are naturally gifted in math and some are not. Children are different and to try and smear those who have trouble with math as “mentally handicapped” is shocklingly offensive.
>4:15 PM you are confused. The previous poster had it right: It’s the ability of the teacher that matters in teaching the fundamental tenets of mathematics. If a student is having difficulty, there are ready solutions for that (clearer explanations, more practice, better study habits, etc.) IF they put in the effort and they remain confused, then the teacher is not doing his job properly.
We have weakened the math curriculum to address the fact that our present teacher workforce grows less and less adept at teaching math. With so few math majors entering the profession, we must make it possible for say, a social studies teacher, to teach math.
That’s fatal to all math students, weak, strong, or gifted.
>No, you and your daughter are not expendable. TERC should be offered as an assist for those who need it. It shouldn’t be primary.
>3:26- nothing in your post about the effort of the child and family support…just the quality of the teacher.
Interesting.
>Note to original poster: Thank you. As early as first grade I struggled with math, too. Everyone (teachers, parents) tried to teach me math facts, but I just didn’t get it. Math was very hard for me to grasp and luckily, after Algebra II in 10th grade, I didn’t have to take it anymore. A few years ago I had the opportunity to attend a TERC workshop and I was blown away. If I had been taught math that way … I probably would be pretty good at math now.
I went to an Ivy League university and changed my major so that I wouldn’t have to take any math. Traditional math doesn’t work for everyone.
>Any adult, teachers included, that find TERC math finally opens the math door for them should NOT fail to realize that an adult brain functions very different from a child’s brain. What adults can grasp and understand is VERY different from children. Elementary kids believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, etc… Clearly our adult brains function differently; wouldn’t you agree? TERC math bores the mathematically inclinced students, confuses the average/capable students and might offer strategies to solve problems for those that struggle in math. GIVE PARENTS THE CHOICE between traditional math and reform math and then every parent in our town will feel their child’s math needs are being met. PROBLEM SOLVED!
>sorry but that fact is you have to learn how to add ,concepts are great but you have to know the basics to be able to even begin discussing concepts and it does sound to me the the original poster was saying hae a got a good grade in english so i should have been given a good grade in math +….this is in my mind the very root of the problem ..you only deserve a good grate in math when you do the work at the end of the day good grade or not you still have to be able to figure out the tip
>Botsford has shown she is INCOMPETENT and needs to go.
This math “issue” has persisted under her and by her.
She has done nothing other than to attempt to pit parent against teacher or parent against parent or school against school.
Give a real curriculum material choice in mathematics – not apples (TERC) to apples (Everyday Math or TRAILBLAZERS)
With the knowledgable parent base, GIVE US A REAL VOICE IN OUR KIDS EDUCATION.
And the Board of Education – sit at your table and hang your head in shame.
You have failed the taxpayers AND THE CHILDREN.
My kid couldnt add with reform math – gee, kid couldnt discover it I guess.
Wow, teach the kid and practice with the kid and look at that – the kid learns.
Whats more amazing to this parent, the kid learned MUCH MORE QUICKLY AND WITH UNDERSTANDING NOT ROTE a new mathematical topic QUICKER WITHOUT REFORM MATH construct your own meaning, discover the way approach.
To the adult that likes TERC – maybe you are finally seeing an explanation to that which you have forgotten.
But those of us that use math and learned higher math, understand the concepts.
And reform math IS NOT TEACHING THOSE CONCEPTS.
TERC does not include those concepts.
Everyday Math has ERRORS in its CONCEPTS.
Hey Regina do you really expect us to believe that children are being taught the understanding behind why the lattice method works or as most of us suspect – they merely MEMORIZE the squares and what to do. Can you even explain how lattice relates to place value? And how it is derived to represent multiplication? I doubt it.
Regina Botsford must go. Brennan needs tell this district (what he sorely knows) – Ridgewood Public Schools are only as good as they SEEM because of the extraordinary efforts PARENTS make with their kids OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOOL.
HOW MANY PARENTS ARE TUTORING? TEACHING AT THE KITCHEN TABLE? SENDING TO HUNTINGTON? TO SCORES? TO KUMON?
wake up folks .. the canary is dead in the coal mine ..
This reform math, lack of grammar, middle school lower track upper track, etc… issues in Ridgewood school district will NOT change until the very heart of the problem has left.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out Miss Botsford, go to some other district and employ your reform ways — gee your last district hates what you brought in there and now so does this one.
And to think, parents are surprised.
We get what we hire.
And we hired reform math, constructivist discovery ideolgues and our BOE has let them run amok – with blank checks and no oversight.
>1:47, my comment was certainly not a “whine” as you so derisively described it.
You excuse your parents lack of intervention as they being too dependent on the “experts” in education because of the “times.” My parents grew up in the same period and they intervened whenever they had to. They had only recently emigrated from another country and didn’t feel any intimidation (or cultural stigma) about intervening when their children were concerned. They got results, too (we all got into top notch colleges, my brother ACEd the SATs, my sister went to Yale, etc.)
Parents have to take some responsibility for the education their children are receiving. Wouldn’t you agree? That is why parents throughout our town are advocating for more appropriate math curricula. If they don’t intervene, then their children might end up like you, hopelessly bad at math, as you so publicly revealed.
>Can’t wait till that BOE election. Regina, keep sticking around like bubblegum on a shoe. Watch what happens to those who hurt our kids.
>how about taking some responsibility for your own life at the end of the day if you cant add YOU cant add you victomise your self…
by the way I agree with the other posters TERC is silly bs no real math there …
>the problem is you live here ,another words you are responsible for your self…
>I agree with 5:33, that you as an adult looking at TERC can not say if you had TERC as a child you would have gotten it. A childs brain is different than an adults. Also, you know your basic math facts, so it is much,much easier now to understand the different strategies of TERC. I wouldn’t mind if some estimating strategies were taught later on, maybe in middle school, but the K-5 curriculm needs to focus on learning the basic math facts.
Also, yes the travell orchard focus group has been reschedule. But don’t count on a report from Beth too soon b/c it is not for another week and a half.
>Well, this is from the TERC 2 website…this is how they teach children to add 14 + 32. Does this really make more sense to you? If so, then your daughter can take the TERC class and my daughter will learn the regular math.
Adding tens and ones
10 + 30 = 40
4 + 2 = 6
40 + 6 = 46
Adding on one number in parts
32 + 10 = 42
42 + 4 = 46
Here’s how you do it, from the TERC website, when you grow up a bit.
Adding by Place
349 + 175 =
300 + 100 = 400
40 + 70 = 110
9 + 5 = 14
400 + 110 + 14 = 524
>Here’s another one…so much easier than old school math…from the terc web site.
https://investigations.terc.edu/library/#a_curric_math
Subtracting back
3,451 – 1,287 =
3,451 – 51 = 3,400
3,400 – 2,100 = 1,300
1,300 – 13 = 1,287
51 + 2,100 + 13 = 2,164
>One more gem from the TERC website…this is their answer as to why they teach children to add from left to right rather than right to left.
Question: Do students learn computational algorithms in Investigations?
Answer: Algorithms are very useful in mathematics. What the TERC curriculum doesn’t support is the rote teaching of a single algorithm for each operation. What’s particularly problematic is that some of the algorithms commonly taught in U.S. schools are not the best algorithms for learning about the particular operation. For example, there is a great deal of research on how students naturally add tens first, then ones, when they have a good foundation in place value and the properties of addition. Adding tens first, then ones, relies on the same properties of addition as does the standard “carrying” algorithm. However, it has the advantage of focusing attention on the largest part of the number first, leading immediately to a sense of what a reasonable answer should be.
Who bought a program that advocates adding left to right? Come on, that’s just stupid.
Read all about – https://investigations.terc.edu/library/#a_curric_math
>NOW I GET IT!!! I’ve tried time and again to help my fifth grader at Travell with addition and subtraction using the standard carrying algorithym and it’s like banging my head into a brick wall. Now I understand why she always goes back to adding/subtracting starting on the left and not the right. Imagine how confusing this must be for her and any other kid getting TERC in school and then going home and getting “helped” by his/her parents. This is unacceptable. In my opinion we are now creating a group of children who Math Confidence is being shot to hell by the very program that supposed to help improve it.
>Regina, if you don’t think this is stupid, stupid math then you’re not qualified to be here earning what????
>NO WHERE IN ANY TERC MATERIAL IS THE STANDARD ALGORITHMS TAUGHT
They did not exist in version 1 – what makes anyone think they exist in version 2?
Because our trust worthy and well informed BOE say so?
Because Regina tells us there is balance?
>Folks there is trouble in Pleasantville and it is not going to go away without a huge battle.
The BOE and their masters, the hired Educrats like Regina, are not going to go quietly into the night. We got lucky with the commuting super from L.I. and the math Csar, “Dr.” Ives leaving.
But it will be much harder for us to rid ourselves of Ms. Botsford. The BOE has invested too much in her and her philosphy to let her cut and run, leaving them holding the bag.
Maybe, just maybe, if Bombace and Brogan are defeated, we will have a chance to restore math to its rightful place in this village.
However, the BOE is going to do its best to find a “white knight” superintendent to lead the charge in stemming the rollback parents are demanding in the math curriculum.
And they will certainly do everything in their power to remain in power come April’s election.
>This is all TERC 2 materials I’m quoting from, straight off their website and copyrighted 2007.
Really, you must read through this stuff for yourself. No educated individual could believe that this was the best way to teach math in Ridgewood.
https://investigations.terc.edu/curric-math/
>One more from the TERC website…this is wonderful…there are no childrens textbooks because the teacher has one and is using it for their “professional development”.
“Question: Why is there no student text book for Investigations?
Answer: The Investigations curriculum is presented through a series of teacher books. Each grade level consists of a set of books (or units), designed for the teacher. Each unit offers 2-8 weeks of work. These books not only provide a complete mathematics curriculum for students; they offer materials to support teachers’ own professional development.
The curriculum does not include student text books. Blackline Masters are located in the back of each unit, providing teachers with reproducible resources for all the student materials necessary for that unit (student sheets or decks of cards, for example). Students work actively with objects and experiences and with a variety of manipulative materials and technology, rather than with workbooks and worksheets filled with problems.
Due to a high level of interest in a student component, and in order to offer an alternative to copying the blackline masters in the back of each unit, Student Activity Booklets were developed.”
>I can see it all now. Ten years from now there will be self help groups called “Children of TERC” being held at the unemployment office. The APA will have a syndrome named “TERC” of which there will be no known cure but medication will be readily available. We’ll see ads on the telly about it along with every other APA sanctioned illness which will include anything that comes along with being human. What a sad, sad future we’re looking at! Our kids won’t be able to afford the nursing homes for us. How sad. How sad.
>6:13 – At least you will be able to see our kids at the nursing homes since they will be working there as aides. They will spend their break time having fun by manipulating the Jello cubes and telling others what their favorite numbers are and why.
>Administrators like Regina could chip in for the nursing homes. They’re getting the money and turning our children into hopeless, ignorant dopes who won’t be able to compete with anyone from India, Russia or China for that six figure corporate financial or technical job.
>Strangely enough, when I go through Saxon Math and Singapore Math material with my children, I am amazed at how wonderfully it is presented. I am certain I did not receive such a great math education. I’ve also gone through Everyday Math material, and I’m equally certain that I’ve never seen math botched so terribly. We don’t want bad math for our children, we want rigorous math taught well by teachers who are competent to teach our children. Be thankful you got C’s in math and not an A in Investigations (TERC). The C is much more valuable than that A can ever aspire to be.
>The fact is that not everyone can (or should) get A’s in Math. I have encountered many engineers and CPAs who just can’t seem to write in coherent English–should humanities courses have been changed to give them a shot at a better grade?
While there are many who are brillant at both disciplines, it is not uncommon to be good in verbal and not in math and vice versa. If you were getting D’s in HS algebra (and were putting forth the same effort as you did in the subjects in which you excelled), I think one can say you simply lacked an aptitude for it and changing the curriculum would not have fundamentally improved your understanding. (Although it may have given you a chance to get a better grade by shifting the focus away from fundamental math.)
Having said all that, I also feel that the best math teachers do use some degree of verbal illustration to make some concepts more accessible and meaningful. Bottom line though is that those who are superior in math simply have an intuitive grasp of mathematical concepts that others lack. That’s an unpopular concept in a society where people are generally uncomfortable recognizing individual differences in talent and capability.
>I am against TERC and supplement my child. But I actually find the example above useful and helpful.
add 14 + 32.
“Adding tens and ones
10 + 30 = 40
4 + 2 = 6
40 + 6 = 46′
This seems the same method as Singapore math, for addition without carrying.
Once you get to 3 digits figures or carrying or borrowing, then the standard methods should be taught.
to be a good and useful way to solve the problem.
>11am
Its unpopular in Ridgewood Public School system where they deny the existence of gifted and talented children …
>12:01pm
Here’s subtracting for a 5th grader from the TERC web site.
Adding up
3,451 – 1,287 =
1,287 + 13 = 1300
1,300 + 2,100 = 3,400
3,400 + 51 = 3,451
13 + 2,100 + 51 = 2,164
>5:32PM’s comments half way through these posts seems to be the most appropriate response…
All students require the fundamental base that teaching basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division provides. However, for those who have difficulty with the subsequent levels of “traditional math”, reform math should be used as a SUPLIMENT. Reform math, however, is not appropriate as the the sole, or even primary, curriculum.
Education is not about satisfying the lowest common demoninator. It is about connecting with each student at their appropriate level. This is why there are AP courses, as well as remedial tutoring.
Traditional math is too important for the majority of students, particularly early on, for it to be sacrificed in favor of reform math, which is the official direction Ridgewood seems to have taken. It is not an “either/or” question. It is a question of how much of both is appropriate for the “baseline” curriculum. Beyond that, individual students may require more or less of each and the curriculum needs to be flexible enough to allow for that variation at an individual level. This may require that an single class be divided into two group, who receive slightly different math instruction, at specific times. This may require a rethinking of how our classrooms operate.