>I am a teacher of mathematics in a metropolitan school district. I have witnessed over the years the down spiral in quality of curricular resource materials for mathematics. I have found it increasingly necessary to enhance, augment, and compensate (for) the materials with which I have been expected to teach. The politics by which inferior resource materials have been foisted on math teachers (and therby students and parents) is insidious and anti-educational. State, district, school, and corporate administrators (attempt to) pressure, misdirect, and manipulate teachers to buy into the math flavor fad of the day. Teacher input is all but ignored unless (of course) it reinforces what the powers-that-be wish to be heard and/or publicized.
Administrative media access so highly filters the information which is output to the public that the quite intelligent and well-meaning parents, who want only to advocate what is best for their children, are often undertandably confused by the discrepancy between administrative lip-service and academic results (e.g. WASL). Being that the math WASL has been all but diefied (unjustifiably) as an academic measure, parental angst becomes preyed upon by smooth talking demagogues offering a reformist concoction of snake oil and mediocrity to remedy a near-disaster of their creation. The apple of mediocrity will always be mediocrity regardless of how well is polished or spiffed up by the minions of fuzzy mathematics. Each year the number of students arriving to my classroom without basic and essential arithmetic skills in place
increases. Many students cannot do simple arithmetic operations without a calculator.
Basic multiplication, division, addition, subtraction, fraction, decimal, exponent, and percent facts are often just not in place… the simple stuff! Often, students are recommended from middle school into high school courses for which they are either less than adequately prepared or for which they are not prepared at all. TERC & CMP exposure and/or induced calculator “dependency” (in elementary and middle school are the usual culprits. Those students who arrive and are indeed ready to advance must then patiently endure the requisite review process in order to bring as many of their classmates up to speed as possible. The math reality… it is insufficient that a student can merely perform calculations on a calculator. Unless an inculcated arithmetic process is operative (consciously or unconsciously) in the student’s reasoning, use of the calculator becomes little better than a crap shoot. It is just as important to have a sense of when an answer is not in the ballpark as when it is. Without a developed sense of knowing the difference, one answer might often be just as well as any other answer.
If I had a Lotto ticket for each time I heard a student remark that an answer was correct because “that’s what the calculator says”, I would have won the lottery long ago.Calculators do not speak. Calculators do not have an opinion. Calculators calculate. (A hammer does not suggest where to place the nail. That is the carpenter’s job.)Good “basic math skills” supply the basis for good mathematical reasoning. Calculators cannot reason. Reasoning is the student’s job. CMP, TERC, IMP, CPM, Core Plus, Everyday Math, etc,… all fail the student. The fundamental cognitive tools of mathematical reasoning (basic skills) are abandoned by these curricula. Rather, these curricula nurture a handicap… a dependence upon the superficial and uninsightful non-reasoning tool, the calculator.Calculators do have their uses. But those uses first need to be tempered by experience… the experience of an acquired comprehensive body of knowledge and interpretive skill. As an educator, I do my best to guide my students through the process of acquiring that mathematical experience. Such experience will surely serve them qualitatively far better (than mere calculator “dependence”) as they progress through their education and, insofar as choices are made, through their lives.
The advocates and purveyors of fluffy math curricula do not seem to be genuinely concerned with the academic and future well-being of students. Such advocates and purveyors seem only to be concerned with the promotion of their ideological agenda(s). I believe that the next step forward should start with one (or more) step(s) backward. Fluffy math texts (and corporate interference) should be scrapped regardless of administrative or governmental pressures. The true educators (parents and teachers) should take back the educational system and do what is right for the kids. Thank you.
NOTE: My point of view tends to get me into hot water with school and district administrators. It is a small price to pay.
>I suggest sending this around to your favorite teachers in Ridgewood. Everyone needs to get some backbone including teachers.
If concerned parents, teachers, and administrators all speak up, we’ll create a tidal wave too strong to resist. We need to take risks on behalf of the kids.
Enough with being told “Well we can’t do anything for YOUR child because this curriculum is for ALL children (translate–not yours).”
Enough with trusting that the administrators must always be right. They’re not. On the math issue, they’re just plain wrong. Shall we wait twenty years to find out? At what cost to the kids?
Enough with parents defending the teachers out of some kind of misplaced loyalty. This is about MATH. As one wise mom said at the BOE microphone “Math is bigger than all of us.”
Indeed.
>Thanks for speaking up. It would be wonderful if teachers in TERC schools would say something. I can imagine it is difficult, but it appears, that in an applaudable effort to insure the education of our children, good teachers are covering for TERC. Parents in Travell and Orchard who are happy with the math program may really be happy with the good teachers who are able to cobble together a decent math curriculum on their own.
>I hope teachers and administrators read this post. The same things are being said by many others throughout this debate. It’s good to hear these arguments outlined by someone in the classroom.
I don’t think it’s possible, however, to get leftist ideology out of the public school system. It will take the eternal vigilance of parents just to keep it from infecting their children’s schooling.
I pray parents have the energy, dedication and resiliance to meet this challenge.
>I honestly don’t understand these comments about “leftist ideology” in the classroom. Huh? What is the alternative…”rightist” ideology? No thanks!
Could someone please define this evil leftist ideology in education?
>Suzie q: do your homework. The TERC publisher web site makes it clear that TERC was created as an alternative to the way white males learn.
Because white males have traditionally done best in math, and because their method was “memorized procedures” the TERC company has jettisoned all memorized procedures in order to “level the playing field.”
They claim that now math is the “new civil rights prize.” They’re intentionally overlooking white boys in favor of girls and minorities.
TERC actually suggests alternative assessment for these folks as well.
You can find all the above quotes on the TERC web site.
Leftist ideology? You can call it what you want. But it’s very very extreme.
And worst of all, it’s an insult to our town’s girls and minorities that they need dumbed-down math and different testing. Are they somehow inferior? What am I missing here?
How far will our schools stray from education as the goal? As far as we let them.
>Suzie Q, do you mean to say that you don’t know that the left lives on in our schools? No one even argues that anymore, not even the left! To them, it’s a victory.
Do you also read The New York Times, believing what they say and thinking the way they want you to think?
>Agreed. Pulling back to the middle would be nice. Or even better, let’s get our district focussed back on education, without the social agendas.
There is such a thing, and some schools in our country are returning to it. It’s called a “classical” education.
With a classical education, learning the material is important again, not just becoming “lifelong learners.”
>Too bad, they’ve made the word classical a dirty word.
BTW — the phrase “lifelong learners” always really irritated me. They don’t have my children for life. So who are they kidding?
I suppose that if you’re always “learning” then you’re never fit to form an opinion, such as: TERC is a useless and harmful fad that should be abandoned permanently.
>The phrase life-long learner means that a person really stokes that thirst for knowledge, that little children intrinsically have but it sometimes is snuffed out by things like rote learning and memorization. It’s a well-intentioned basis for constructivist education, which has been much maligned on this blog. I don’t think that everyone really understands what constructivism is. It’s not evil…. it’s just that it can NOT be 100% of what goes on in a classroom. Yes, Virginia- some memorization must take place and don’t kid yourselves, it does. Remember learning state capitals? But constructivism takes the notion that the mind is not just an empty vessel that teachers (or parents) pour facts into. We have to ignite that little fire inside that gets a student experimenting, manipulating and learning on their own. It’s often habit-forming and it creates the greatest scientific, linguistic and mathmatical minds. I will say this again, I’ve said it many times and in many places on this blog, a good teacher cannot and does not use 1 method, all the time. It is just not done. We all put a great deal of weight on Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences and also on Bloom’s taxonomy. Brain research (Glasser’s Learning Scale) proves that we learn 10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear, 30% of what we see, 50% of what we both see and hear (multi-sensory), 70% of what is discussed with others, 80% of what we experience personally and 90% of what we teach to someone else. Don’t throw all of constructivist theory out like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you don’t believe that math instruction in town is balanced, you’re probably right. It is leaning heavily toward the constructivist/reform side, but there are good teachers out there still using tried and true methods and every year my children have come home with math fact triangles and we’ve worked on them at home.
>Lifelong learners has always grated on me, too. My kids came into school already knowing how to learn. I just wanted the school to TEACH them something.
As a result of TERC, we’ve had plenty of discussions with our kids about education, ideology, navigating the political waters, advocacy, and much more.
My kids are learning their lifelong learning skills at home, given a real-life example, replete with an abundancy of lessons. LOL
>I’ve noticed that some people posting about math lack some of the basics about the problems of TERC, Everyday Math, and other reform math curricula.
There’s a well-written, well-researched blog that comes from a Connecticut writer that will fill you in.
It’s called Mindless Math Mutterings.
This is a dedicated parent who could use some support via her comments section. If you’re on the fence, ask questions there. If you think maybe reform math is okay, offer your reasons why. The Ridgewood blog isn’t the only blog around that covers math education issues.
Concerned parents all over the nation are researching and writing.
Mindless Math Mutterings is one of the best.
>too bad the district wouldnt do a little (more) experimenting
– creating one elementary school based on a classical education – where textbooks and workbooks exist for the liberal arts – that being math, history, literature, grammar, and science.
and another elementary school based on “constructivism” – where discovery and whatever else is desired (manipulatives, TERC, inquiry based science)
and allow supply & demand to play out
this could even transpire in our middles schools – we do have two of them….
the false assumption in all of this is that the “old” way or the classical way had ONLY rote memorization and that is just not the case
a little lie undocrinated in the Education schools, perpetuated in math arguments by the NCTM, and preached by the publishers of such crap as TERC MATH (and they do inquiry science as well)
of course this little experiment assumes, correctly or wrongly, that an equal amount of dollars and training would be spent on teachers of both school and on materials for both schools but that would mean the administration would not be pushing its own agenda
and they’ve never done that
then ALL would be happy
(and I bet our $82 million budget could afford it too)
>Don’t you get it? Yeah, they come into school knowing how to learn, because they are young and inquisitive, it’s instinct. However, if they sat around just memorizing facts, algorhythms, whatever- they’d lose that and just want to know “What do we have to know for the test tomorrow?” and they’d lose that drive to acquire more knowledge just for the sake of spitting it back out on a test.
>How can any adult put a child’s learning in the hands of that child? Yes, children are curious and inquisitive, but to what end? It is our (the adults) obligation to mold our children into productive, civil, educated individuals. Children do not come with that road map imprinted in their DNA. To sit back and force our children to keep reinventing the wheel does them a great disservice. The abdication of the administrators and the teachers from their sworn duty to educate, or, to lead, our children to the finer thnigs in life is simply reprehensible. And, to purposefully target females and minorities at the expense of white males is nothing less than criminal. Any parent with a white male child in this school system should consider filing charges for “theft of services” against the BOE.
>It’s not as if the child is left alone to “reinvent the wheel.” Think of this simple example. If I tell you that heating a solvent will allow it to accept more solute, thus creating a super-saturated solution you may remember it. Great. The kid sitting next to you may not. The kid sitting behind you already knew it, and the kid 2 seats away heard it but his ADD is such that he got distracted by little Johnny blowing his nose and he promptly forgot it. This is a crude cross-section of an every day class and the “readiness” with which each student comes into any class. OK. Now we do an experiment and you all get to hands on participate, heating water, adding a measured amount of salt and doing the same to water that hasn’t been heated. You cooperatively record results and report back to the class. Which experience will you carry forward and remember come test time? I guarantee it was the active participation of conducting the experiment that you will remember and be able to draw upon. Hey— crazy idea! It may even make you curious to wonder about other solvents and other solutes and— call me crazy! It may pique your interest in other matters in the realm of science. This is all we are talking about. Not just sitting listening to facts/lectures, whatever. Teachers are no longer the “expert” just spouting at the kids. We guide. We encourage. We question. We expect. We teach. Forgive me if I sound defensive, but I am passionate about what I do. I am a teacher and I’m proud of that and I’m frankly sick and tired of everyone being a critic about things that they think they know. Having 1, 2, 3 or 4 or more kids at home is one thing. Teaching 27 or 30 at a time, period in and period out, year in and year out- that teaches you about kids; what makes them tick, what keeps them engaged, and how to help them move forward.
And 7:03, I have a white, male child in this school system. If I thought for one minute he was getting short shrift, I’d step up to the plate my damn self and I’d read to/with him more and spend more time with him, enrich him on my own. Just because we pay high taxes does that mean that we don’t do anything with our kids’ intellects at home? They are the sum of their life experiences. Make sure you are contributing in a meaningful and constructive way.
>”Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel”
– go argue with Socrates.
>to a resident and a teacher –
You are basing your arguments on the same false assumptions made by the creators of reform materials. Nobody needs training in constructivism to discover that “the mind is not just an empty vessel that teachers (or parents) pour facts into.” No competent teacher ever just “spouted at the kids” or made them sit “around just memorizing facts, algorhythms.” And you are not the first teacher who had their students conduct an experiment.
All good teachers, and probably most of the bad ones, know that kids learn differently and teachers need to be creative in finding ways to interact with all of their students. There should be, and there always has been, ample room in the classroom for direct instruction and discovery.
The problem with terc and cmp is that they alter the content that is the foundation of mathematics. These materials, which were developed by non-mathematicians (educators) invent their own vocabulary that is not part of the language of mathematics. These materials also encourage students to do calculations in ways that are not consistent with the way math is done by scientists and engineers. Many of these algorithms are crude, involving such “alternative stategies” as “guessing and checking” or “grouping and counting.” The large majority of kids in this town are being underserved by these programs.
I feel, as you do, that parents and teachers are partners in our children’s education. It’s fair to ask that our schools contribute in a meaningful way.
>8:47- thank goodness, you sound sane. 😉 All kidding aside, I don’t proclaim to be the first or only teacher to do experiments in my classroom because I am not even a science teacher. My example was just one that is easily understood by many.
Also, please correct me if I’m wrong about this- and I very well may be- don’t the reform math programs move the kids along, that is to say, they don’t keep them with the guessing and checking, estimating or grouping and counting strategies, but they use it to develop some comfort and number sense and they move on to more traditional methods? I am not sure about this and I’m sincerely looking for clarification, I’m not trying to be cute…
Also, as far as the lexicon, doesn’t that change too? When teaching a special education study skills class, we started to explore fractions using a pizza pie and pizza slices, but we didn’t stick with that vocabulary- we then related it to 1/8’s, 1/4’s, 1/2’s etc. Does a similar evolution take place within these programs so that kids end up using the more universally accepted language of math?
>To a resident and a teacher, I’m not sure you covered this point, not every kid learns with the constructivist method.
Some kids, I was one of them, love the purity of mathematics. You memorized the facts, learned the algorithms and solved the equations. It was simple compared to the touchy-feely stuff that was done in language arts. I hated writing sentences about how characters feel…give me an equation any day of the week..that is simple.
So my point is that there were quite a few people who are not successful in finance, engineering, chemistry or mathematics who thrived in traditional environments.
The problem may be that most of the elementary school teachers leaned towards the language arts area and didn’t get pure math as kids, so they think TERC is great for those who didn’t get math.
The problem is TERC is not pure math…pure math is what it is and not everyone is going to get it on the higher levels.
There is such a thing, and some schools in our country are returning to it. It’s called a “classical” education.
>There is such a thing, and some schools in our country are returning to it. It’s called a “classical” education.
Good point, back in the old days only the rich got the “classical” educations and the poor went to “vocational” schools and only were taught what they need to work in a factory.
That was back in the day that John Dewey was forming his views on public education. It’s too bad his views haven’t been updated to match the times.
>9:54- I agree with you. If you learned best through direct instruction and didn’t feel comfortable left to construct your own meaning, then you should be afforded the practice and reinforcement on those terms. Not a problem there unless the classroom teacher is not a good differentiator, which is a discussion for another time and another place- those teachers do exist, and that’s unfortunate.
That being said, it’s interesting that you refer to the way you learned as “pure math” and “higher levels.” Actually what you are referring to is lower order thinking, ie. show me, I will do some guided practice and now I can do it on my own. When kids can transfer the knowledge and apply it to other situations (which is I think what TERC is misguidedly trying to teach)is actually the higher order thinking. If you google Bloom’s Taxonomy, the research is there. I think that I’ve learned a lot here and on sites like vormath. I think I’ve decided that the intentions were good with most reform programs, they are just misguided and too biased in the other direction. Yes, exploration is a good thing (why does this formula work, why does this computation always come out correctly, that sort of thing) but I think it’s being overdone and in too much of a disconnected way with previous methods.
>REFORM MATH VIEWPOINT ON THE STANDARD ALGORITHMS:
“Algorithms not only are not helpful in learning arithmetic, but also hinder development of numerical reasoning…” Constance Kamii and Ann Dominick.
“It’s just another way of getting the answer.” TERC website.
Consider the seemingly mundane skill of adding two whole numbers.
e.g.,
4 5
+ 3 1
_____
7 6
Nothing could be simpler. But if you are the teacher, how would you convince your children that this is worth learning?
Let us see.
How else would you add these two numbers? In fact, what does adding whole numbers mean?
We must make clear what it is that we are doing. Adding whole numbers means iterated counting. In this case, you count to 45, and then starting at 45, you count 31 times again and see where you end up. You end up at the number 76, and that is the sum.
If you are the teacher, and if you know exactly what adding whole numbers means, you would begin by asking your children to act out the iterated counting:
count to 45, and then count 31 more times to make sure they get to 76.
This would keep them interested, but it will also make them feel frustrated. That is good, because you want them to know that
adding numbers is hard work.
Now you get to play the magician. You tell them it is not necessary to count so strenuously to get the answer to 45+31 (make them learn to write addition horizontally as well as vertically from the beginning!), because you are going to do two simple countings instead, one being 4 + 3 and the other 5 + 1, and these already give the correct answer.
This should really perk them up!
You can demonstrate this effectively by bringing in two bags of marbles, one bag containing 45 and the other 31. You dump them on the mat, mix them up and ask them to count how many marbles there are together. They will have to count a long time, and of course the longer the better. Then you collect the 45 marbles, and put them into bags of 10; there will be 4 such bags with 5 stragglers. Do the same with the other 31 marbles. Now you dump these bags and stragglers on the mat again, and ask them how many marbles there are.
It won’t take long for them to figure out that there are
4 + 3 bags of 10 and
5 + 1 stragglers
They will figure out that 7 bags of 10 together with 6 stragglers give 76 again.
Now ask them to compare the counting of the bags-and-stragglers with the magic you performed just a minute ago. If they don’t see the connection (and some won’t), you the teacher will patiently explain it to them.
Of course this is the time to go over place value all over again and use it to explain the algorithm to them:
45 40 + 5
+ 31 <---> 30 + 1 <--->
—- ——
?? ? ?
40 + 5 <---> 45
+30 + 1 <---> 31
——- —-
70 + 6 76
They will listen more carefully this time to your incantations of place value because you have now given them more incentive to learn about this important topic.
So this is the essence of the addition algorithm: instead of doing the tedious, mind-numbing counting, you break up the task digit-by-digit and end up counting only two one-digit numbers in succession.
Recall that the main goal of the elementary mathematics curriculum is to provide children with a good foundation for mathematics.
In this context, the addition algorithm, when taught this way, serves as a splendid introduction.
It {standard algorithm} teaches children an important skill in mathematics: one always breaks up a complicated task into a sequence of simple easy ones if possible.
This is why we do not look at 45 or 31, but only 4 and 3 and also 5 and 1. We break up the numbers into single digits, add the single digits, and then reassemble the separate pieces of information to arrive at the final result. Of course, further down the road, you would encounter the phenomenon of “carrying”, but that is just a sidelight, a little wrinkle on the fabric.
“Carrying” is not the main idea of the addition algorithm as most textbooks would have you believe. The main idea is to break up any addition into the additions of one-digit numbers and then put these simple computations together to get the final answer.
If you can make your children understand that, you would be doing fantastically well as a teacher, because you have taught them important mathematics. And indeed that is the goal – to teach mathematics and the above is loaded with understanding.
YOU STILL THINK LEARNING THE STANDARD ALGORITHMS STUNT’S CHILDREN’S INTELLECTUAL GROWTH?
For more read…“What should be taught in the elementary curriculum (June 2, 2007)” by H.Wu, Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkley. [URL = https://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/Skywalkertalk.pdf. ]
Now compare the above with what is written IN THE TEACHER MATERIALS for TERC 2nd Edition:
Unit books for Grade 3 called “Trading Stickers & Combining Coins” & “Collections and Travel Stories”
Both books had a subtitle of Addition, Subtraction, and the Number System. ISBN-10:032823744-2
Here are some direct quotes …
The U.S. “carrying” algorithm, which some third grade students may be familiar with, is also an example of adding by place…For many third graders, the compressed notation of this algorthm can obscure both the place value of the numbers and the meaning of each step of the procedure.
The U.S. “carrying” algorithm is not addressed directly in Grade 3, although some students may be able to use it with understanding.
Students who use the standard algorithm should also learn other strategies.
The Investigations curriculum, like NCTM, recognizes the importance of students’ learning the basic combinations fluently through reasoning about number realationships. In other words, students learn these combinations best by using strategies, not simply by rote memorization.
Relying on memorization alone is not sufficient. If you forget – as we all do at times – you are left with nothing.
————
The aforementioned article by a Professor of Mathematics also goes into the multiplication algorithm.
Enough depth in that algorithm but our teachers waste WASTE time with the lattice method.
>To a resident and a teacher ….
I’m a tad confused … you explain the variation of a class – I have copied your words below…I will over simplify them – lots of kids, some easily distracted, various learning styles, overall a difficult process but one teachers are thrust into after Education school…
“Having 1, 2, 3 or 4 or more kids at home is one thing. Teaching 27 or 30 at a time, period in and period out, year in and year out”…”The kid sitting next to you may not. The kid sitting behind you already knew it, and the kid 2 seats away heard it but his ADD is such that he got distracted by little Johnny blowing his nose and he promptly forgot it. This is a crude cross-section of an every day class and the “readiness” with which each student comes into any class.”
Then you go on to explain how by doing an experiment with ALL those kids (different attention spans, learns, styles) will TEACH them lesson.
But you make no mention that without instruction on what you are trying to learn in the experiment (beforehand), the lesson is loss? (I will assume this is an oversight)
But also,
I wonder how with 27 kids in a class, can 1 teacher be sure each child has “learned” the lesson from the experiment and the group work of children has not spiralled into 3 girls chatting, one boy doing the work, another boy still picking his nose, 4 girls trying to do the experiment but forgetting why and wondering if they’ll get messy, 2 kids wondering if its lunch yet, one boy bored by the experiment so not participating in his group … and so forth
the message in all of that is the belief that a classroom was MERELY a teacher pontificating at the front of the room ALL DAY ALL THE TIME – and that is laughable as it is not true — even back in the day I attended school
what is not laughable is removing a textbook or a workbook – it removes the ability for a PARENT to assess and track what is occuring in the classroom – unless thats the intent – hide the content to be taught
what is not laughable, when the districts assistant superintendent throws praises at the Common Ground document and our district prominently links to it on their website
and yet a major piece of that document is real world problems should not be raised to a level of principle
and that is exactly what is occuring in our sciences and in our math
and dare I say in our studies of grammar
and perhaps social studies (history)
Our district, in Travell and Orchard and in the Middle Schools, has lost accountability for CONTENT being taught to the children.
How nice (sic) as then the school says, its the child’s fault for not knowing a fact, theorem, or algorithm.
When in reality it is the school that has failed.
>6:03,
You’ve been lied to. The old way was not all about memorizing facts.
But it was about content. Do you really think good teachers didn’t used to exist? Only YOU know how to teach?
Yikes.
>Dear Resident and Teacher,
You said, “Actually what you are referring to is lower order thinking, ie. show me, I will do some guided practice and now I can do it on my own.”
Aren’t you a little out of your league? You’re arguing with an engineer. Hang it up. You don’t know everything.
That’s part of the problem. Teachers thinking they know everything. How about just listening and learning from people who were NOT indoctrinated in ed school and have real jobs based on math?
>6:35- I actually left a post asking the former poster who referred to the “old” or “classical methods” to clarify. I either did not receive an answer or PJ didn’t post it. Go figure. And you are misinterpreting my comments, I’m not saying that there were NO good teachers nor that I am the only good one. I’m just saying that the limited methods that were used historically reached a certain percentage of students, for the rest, oh well… they were out of luck. Now, we try to reach each kid. I’m sorry for you if you find fault with that.
>6:41- I am NOT arguing math with anyone. I am discussing teaching methods and brain research. My example wasn’t even math, it was science. I am not even a science or math teacher, so I am discussing this is a very general way. I don’t believe I’ve ever claimed to know everything. It seems to be the public (at least here) in general who thinks they are experts in educating the youth of today. If I make too good a point, PJ doesn’t post it here. It just “disappears” into cyberspace. Didn’t you ever have a professor who may have been a genious in his/her field but stunk as a teacher because they didn’t know how to effectively impart their knowledge?
It is you who are more likely out of your league, arguing pedagogy with an educator, it’s what I do every day! So….do you care to look in the mirror???
>PJ, you are so right on. It’s odd that people who are not in the trenches as teachers sometimes miss your points, but they are well founded.
I give math/magic programs in dozens of schools every year, and have given them in states all across the country, and in Europe, and it’s always the same – there’s a high percentage of elementary and middle school students who can’t perform basic math.
One of the tragedies is that the kids generally don’t know how poor their performance is. They have done “fine” on the tests. It breaks my heart to know that they are going to get thrashed when they try to enter to the workforce, or college. They are scarred already, and are in for a bad surprise, and it’s not their faults. They’ve been fed crap and told that they fart perfume.
All the anecdotes about how “my child learned with TERC so I seen nothing wrong with it” only proves that some people are so bad at math that they think personal anecdotes prove an argument.
The big picture is that the “new-math-du-jour” has not helped the nation’s children at large, and that the silly search for “the one best way” is a Snark-hunt.
For some further thoughts, you might want to check out: Eyes Wide Shut at The Math Mojo Chronicles.
As far as “leftist ideology,” I think we ought to lay that to rest. Can we please discard the false-dichotomy and political posturing about what is essentially a math problem? How can we do the most good for the most students, and still take the others into account? – That is the question, and it transcends partisan politics and agendas.
Stop bashing whichever side you’ve insisted on misrepresenting in the past, and start teaching the students. (It speaks volumes that the person who spent his anger ranting about “the left” chose to remain anonymous.)
Keep up the good fight, PJ. If we had more teachers who were dedicated like you, well, we’d still have to deal with the same amount of idiots in the front office.
P.S. Calculators were invented by vampires to suck your brains out (as well as your school district’s budget).
Hotcha!
>to a resident and a teacher –
You have done something that many of our school administrators have not. You have attempted to understand the issues by listening to opposing views, and asking questions. Since you indicated that you have a child in the district, it would be a good idea for you to view copies of some of the terc or cmp materials. I’m sure many Travell parents or the vormath moms will provide you with samples. You will see, unfortunately, that terc does not move students along. Even in the 5th grade material terc will not call an equation an equation. The incessant writing about all the steps taken to solve a problem, and the picture drawing, do not promote abstract thinking.
Ignore the comments of those who bash teachers. Teachers did not choose these materials. In fact, Travell has spent almost $10,000 pf HSA $$ for many of their teachers to be trained in terc for 2 weeks.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, teachers and parents are partners in educating our kids. Our schools must supply the materials that are most appropriate for our kids.
>Perhaps I have an unusual view of the world of education, but each and every day I walk into my classroom and I remind myself of something important: I remember whom I work for.
It’s not my principal, who is a good guy with many positive qualities.
It’s not any of his assistants, some of whom I like and some of whom never met Will Rogers.
It is certainly not the children, although some teachers forget this and actually believe the children should have an equal voice in the daily running of a classroom.
I work for the parents and the taxpayers. They are the people who pay me and they are the people I serve. It’s my job to provide them with the best service I possibly can. This is not always easy or convenient.
“THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS”
>As far as “leftist ideology,” I think we ought to lay that to rest. Can we please discard the false-dichotomy and political posturing about what is essentially a math problem? How can we do the most good for the most students, and still take the others into account? – That is the question, and it transcends partisan politics and agendas.
Brian, these are sage words, indeed.
And as for THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS by Rafe Esquith … it is a must read for every teacher and every parent who knows in their heart that public education can work when well executed.
>10:23- that’s funny. The nuns of old were affective at some things, not necessarily teaching one to be curious and inspiring learners- but they were good at getting kids to memorize basic facts. That’s great for some subjects, not so much for others. THat’s why, after a year of high school Latin, I can speak one or two sentences, and that’s about it. But I can recite back a declension “chant” that she taught us. Big woop. It’s endings, -us-i-a-um-o, -a-orum-is-as-is or something like that. I couldn’t transfer (apply) that knowledge to save my life. Is that teaching?
We need a balance, I think that is what can be said. Is there a program that does so? That’s what we should be pushing for and stop with the left-bashing, feminist-bashing, Montclair-bashing, etc… it debases your cause. Just because I am a teacher, I’ve been called a know it all, an educrat, told I’m out of my league. All of this from anonymous people, who do Lord knows what for a living, have been educated to some unknown level, in an unknown subject area. Stop debasing the issue, we need a true balance in the math classroom- if some kids understand better by verbalizing steps, ok. If some do better by writing steps, ok. If some don’t (such as my own son) ok. We need a curriculum and a program that allows for all of this and we need to finally differentiate instruction in Ridgewood, not cram 1 way down kids (and parents) throats. I’m amazed at the disrespect and disdain that some posters have for me and others who are in the education field. For those of you who are keeping a cool head and not calling us names and not telling me “spare us the pedagogy crap and teach” (you wonder why kids are so disrespectful these days???), thank you. Posts like the one from 10:26 give me hope.
>I’m amazed at the disrespect and disdain that some posters have for me and others who are in the education field you shouldn’t be ,you made failure a way of life
>who can anyone think about a subject if they dont know even the most basic facts
>education is one business were failure is worshiped and like all goverment if it dosnt work just spend more and do less is the answer to everything
>FAILURE AND FRAUD: Educators are experts at excuses [Sowell]
…and more than three-quarters failed the statewide test in math. Nearly half of these youngsters did so badly in math that the scores indicate ”they can barely add and subtract,” according to a report in the New York Post.
The local education establishment had one of their automatic defenses. A brief paragraph in the New York Times said it all: ”Some school officials in New York City, stunned by the low scores, suggested yesterday that they could only have come from unrealistically difficult tests or a flawed scoring system.”
In other words, we couldn’t possibly be doing anything wrong.
read on at
Failure and Fraud
>The teacher and resident said, “When kids can transfer the knowledge and apply it to other situations (which is I think what TERC is misguidedly trying to teach)is actually the higher order thinking. If you google Bloom’s Taxonomy, the research is there. I think that I’ve learned a lot here and on sites like vormath. I think I’ve decided that the intentions were good with most reform programs, they are just misguided and too biased in the other direction. Yes, exploration is a good thing (why does this formula work, why does this computation always come out correctly, that sort of thing) but I think it’s being overdone and in too much of a disconnected way with previous methods.”
Yes Yes Yes! You got it! Let’s take best practices (there are one or two) from the ill-fated reform math curricula and put them where they belong–in traditional math.
Too many teachers and administrators focus on the pedagogical INTENT of reform math and miss the obvious–it’s a miserable failure.
TERC is way too skewed to be fixed.
>The book “The Well-Trained Mind” is about classical education.
One can concentrate on content instead of process and be a good teacher.
Without facts as your scaffold, one learns little.
Long before reform math, teachers have used discovery as a teaching method.
Now it’s a god.
Gods in education or in business will always cause big blind spots.
>12:53- thank you for being so sane and reasonable.
12:08, 12:09, 12:13- I feel like I’m trying to have an adult conversation with a child and an ill-mannered one at that, so before you call me a failure or you stoop to sticking your tongue out at me, I think I’ll tell you that I’ve finished posting here. I will continue to follow the sane portion of the math dialogue in Ridgewood and will talk to the math teachers that I know and respect.
Thank you for showing me the light.
>11:08 PM
Great post…one other point is that the marbles and counting by fingers can be done once to show how simple the standard algorithm makes adding, but there is not enough time in a classroom to do that every day.
That is one of the other problems with TERC that even the supporters must acknowledge…it was developed to be taught at least 1 hour a day. Most teachers don’t have that much time sloted for math … so they teach what they can.
>Most of the mainstream curriculum, such as Hougton Mifflin or Saxon has taken what works in reform math and integrated into it’s traditional math…so the town could buy one of those programs and we’d all be happy.
To the teacher, sorry there is a lot of anger against teachers, but parents have been ignored for a long time in this debate. The word “pedogogy” is used way too often and “content” or “lesson plan” are never used.
When my kids were little they used to come home with a list of everything they were doing that week … it was called a homelink so you could follow along.
Those type of “content” outlines and communications are not sent home anymore, locking the parents out.
It has caused resentment from parents towards teachers even though they may not have made the decision to stop communicating with parents.
Plus, there is one Principal in town who doesn’t speak very highly of their teachers…which may get some people thinking the teachers are to blame.
>”Ignore the comments of those who bash teachers.”
This is not about bashing teachers. There are teachers who choose to believe what they’ve been taught without thinking for themselves. And then there are those who question what they’ve been taught.
If you want kids to be critical thinkers, then their teachers must be, too.
There’s nothing wrong with questioning someone about what they’re believing.
I have a lot of respect for the teacher on here who seems open-minded. Open-minded enough to be asked whether maybe not all they’ve been taught is true. It restores my confidence a bit.
Right now, some Ridgewood parents’ confidence is shaken, and that’s simply an indisputable fact.
I think it’s reasonable to expect that our children’s teachers are intellectuals. It’s nice to get to talk to some who are. We don’t have to agree. Just be thinkers.
>To the teacher/resident: It’s never the question or the comment that matters, it’s how you respond to it if you so choose.
Taking insult from anonymous posters is rather silly. I would expect a thicker skin from someone in the field of public education.
If you hadn’t noticed, our public education system is failing a huge chunk of our population. We see blame in education schools, education degrees, unions, teacher training, administrative arrogance, state mandates, boe’s and a monopoly system where failure is treated the same as success.
This, alone, should give you chills.
The raw comments you read here are necessary for you to gauge the tenor of anger and mortification with how our education leaders respond to parents concerns about weakness in our curriculum and acceptence of our state’s low standards as our own.
Would it help if we all said “we love you?”
We don’t get that at our offices daily. Yet we are expected to take criticism, be judged by our superiors and still get the job done. No excuses.
>3:52- does it help you to understand my position to know that in both middle schools I’ve worked in there hasn’t been an absence policy? A child could be absent as much as they wanted… no problem. I asked about it in both cases and was told that we “have no policy.” Ditto on if a child gets F’s. Is that my fault or the administration/district? I actually had to change a grade in my former district. It was a special education student and because I hadn’t checked his agenda each and every day (I missed 2) and highlighted the homework when it wasn’t done (as was explained and mandated in his IEP) I was found to be at fault and I had to change his grade. I resigned at the end of that year. Too often, we aren’t teaching the kids to be accountable. Often times the teachers don’t want excuses from the administration, the child study team, etc… we want the kids to learn responsibility and accountability but our hands are tied.
Oh, don’t worry- we get criticized, judged, observed, evaluated every day.
Public education is not perfect, but the vast majority of the time, I believe the best interests of the student is at the heart of the matter. Sometimes, however, policies are short-sighted and we can’t fight about each and every one we think is. We have a job to do and that keeps us busy. So as a parent, why don’t you question some of those policies so that we can continue to plan our lessons, know our curriculum cold, develop engaging activities and methods that keep kids interested, engaged and actively learning and develop and give assessments that measure the learning. Maybe teachers and parents can work together to get positive changes made, such as a dress code- which doesn’t seem to exist! I share your frustrations, I really do. But how can we effect change from the inside (and the lowest rung at that!) if we are so busy every moment of our day doing what we get paid to do?
>highlighted the homework when it wasn’t done (as was explained and mandated in his IEP) I was found to be at fault
It was your responsibility and so you were at fault.
we want the kids to learn responsibility and accountability
Thats a parent job (thank you but I prefer to parent for my kids) so please focus on educating and teaching AND TELL YOUR ADMINISTRATOR AND PARENTS WHEN misbehavior is getting in the way of actually teaching. I know a couple of kids who would like that – being taught and those that can’t act proper in class being sent out of the class – to the principal. Let the principal deal with it (as it should be THE PRINCIPAL AND PARENTS JOB to resolve behavioral issues and NOT YOUR JOB – shameful of a principal to expect that of a teacher)
heck, you’d be appluaded in this town if you opened your window and said, I am teaching and if your kid cant behave send em to another class not MINE… You’d have parents with well-behaved, eager, thirsting children lining up at YOUR door.
>7:32 Socrates wasn’t talking about children who are no where near the age of reason.
>4:34PM and teacher…
The teacher is right. He’s the low man on the totem pole and can’t initiate change. It’s silly for parents to say the teachers should stand up and complain…who complains when their direct managers do something really stupid? Only people who want to lose their jobs.
The teacher with the IEP story has a point. If he missed a week or two, he would be at fault, but two days was nothing. There are a lot of teachers in Ridgewood who forget quite often to do the things in an IEP for weeks on end.
As far as having only the well behaved in one class, that’s what they did years ago in the public schools, it was called tracking. It worked for the top rung students and some of the students in the middle, but the ones at the bottom weren’t well served.
It is currently politically incorrect to track kids in the elementary schools. It does stink if your kids is put in the lower level classes and very hard to move them out.
Maybe if they tracked the kids and reduced the class sizes for the kids who were in the lower levels, it might work. Put all those resource people in that one class and see if you can bring the bottom tier up. The top tier doesn’t need all those paras and specialist in their classroom anyway, they find it easy to learn.
CMP, the new middle school math program, is sometimes used for lower track students…that tells you that the program isn’t geared for ALL the children.
>”But how can we effect change from the inside (and the lowest rung at that!) if we are so busy every moment of our day doing what we get paid to do?”
Teachers work between 182-188 days out of a 240 day work year. Their union limits them to about 4 hrs and 23 minutes of time spent in front of a class. The remaining 3 hrs and 37 minutes out of an 8hr teacher day are for classroom prep, conferences, lunch, mtgs, etc.
This, I’m afraid, is not too long a day, certainly not for the average worker. A teacher’s compensation averages $44.00 per hour worked; dentists and nuclear engineers earn less.
The teaching profession could benefit from a business approach to time management. TERC and discovery learning are time wasters. In a system where time is drastically limited by union rules, such programs are harmful exponentially.
First, they don’t work. Second, they’re still fixing them. Third, they take way too much time to teach and fourth, teachers need additional “training” to become somewhat adept at using them.
Parents would pay more attention to curriculum if only they could break down the steel doors that hide it from them. Teachers could help and insist that students get textbooks, for instance; and parents get an overview of what will be taught in a given year.
That’s a start. But first, let’s get rid of TERC, so that you have more time to be a more thorough teacher.
>Don’t forget to get rid of CMP2, it has cutting and pasting with glue sticks too!!
>There’s a new kind of tracking, called “flexible tracking” that’s done in some schools, in which kids can be easily moved around as needed. Works well.