>Which math do you want your child to do? Which math do you want to pay for with your soon to be increasing local taxes?
Reform math
This is a fifth-grade math question from “Investigations,” which deals with number sense and getting students to look at different strategies to solve a problem. The teacher would guide students to think of “sensible” ways to approach this multiplication problem:
Choose any two of these as a first step to complete 14 x 9 =
A. Start by solving 10 x 9 =
B. Start by solving 7 x 9 =
C. Start by solving 14 x 10 =
Students are asked to break the question into numbers that are easier to multiply. For instance, they could solve 10 x 9 = 90, and 4 x 9 = 36. Then they would add both sums together: 90 + 36 = 126. (Alternatively, they could start with 7 x 9 and then multiply the answer by 2, or start with 14 x 10 and then subtract 14.)
Not Reform math
This is a fifth-grade math problem from a Singapore Math textbook:
Solve: 492 x 98 =
The Singapore curriculum introduces multiplication problems in the second grade. The materials teach different strategies for doing these problems, such as memorizing multiplication tables and breaking problems down into smaller numbers. By fifth grade, the materials would assume students have mastered these skills, and would be able to multiply complex numbers.
Examples courtesy of the July 12th, 2007 Seattle Times article: New Math Stirs Passions Among Bellevue Parents, Teachers at https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003785645_mathwars12e.html
>From everything I have read and heard, it seems to me that reform math (TERC) would be GREAT for those students who find math hard. Students who excel in math or even those who are average in math would better benefit from non-reform math and should not have TERC shoved down their throats.
It appears as though the “TERC LOVERS” (school administrators and boe members)do not want to listen to the math experts from out top universities nor do they want to admit that our individual school rankings leave much to be desired. They are very close-minded individuals who seem to be on a power trip. Our children will suffer for their stupidity.
>The children who excel in math or are average in math and are being forced to learn TERC hopefully have parents who can afford to hire a math tutor.
By law our schools are required to give each and every student a “free and appropriate education.” Hiring a tutor is not “free.” TERC is definitely not “appropriate” for every student.
We are being shortchanged here in Ridgewood. Shame on our boe trustees and school officials.
>Do you think that our boe members are trying to dumb down our children to their level of stupidity?
>”By fifth grade, the materials would assume students have mastered these skills, and would be able to multiply complex numbers.”
This line is key. The TERC method may be valid as a learning tool, but not when you’ve got to going and really do it.
>> Do you think that our boe members are
> trying to dumb down our children to
> their level of stupidity?
No.
I also don’t the BOE members are themselves stupid or close-minded. From what I know, they work hard at being a BOE member — it takes a lot of hours per week to be a BOE member, in addition to holding a “day job”.
They also mean well & try to do the right thing for the kids & the district. They tend to be active in the schools and around the community in a variety of capacities. There aren’t a lot of perks in the BOE job itself, and the pay isn’t anything to right home about. 😉
My sense is that TERC & the general move towards “new math” comes from educators & trends in education schools. BOE members, with the exception of Mr Vallerini, are not educators by profession — so there may be a bit of “that’s not my area of expertise” when it comes to reviewing & approving changes in the curriculum.
It would be sort of like Microsoft having only one technology geek on its board of directors. Suppose that some technology geeks in the company come to the board and say, “Microsoft has to move from SQL Server programs and code everything in C++ instead.” What would happen? The non-technologists on the board might well go along with what the technologists recommend.
>Trying to learn math with out the basics is like trying to learn to read with out the alphabet…anyone except for an educator knows this turkey math is a scam
>I’m a mom in our school district.
When I started asking questions about TERC last year, I decided to teach my kids at home using Singapore Math, and most recently switched to Saxon Math. The youngest two were still getting TERC Investigations in school at the time I started my home program.
I started each child with a placement test, and put each in the appropriate book.
That was 17 months ago.
The results:
Age 14: Jumped five grade levels
Age 12: Jumped five grade levels
Age 9: Jumped six grade levels
All three of them are now doing Saxon Algebra. Just for the record, we’re big on those deep-thinking word problems, which we supplement from Singapore Math.
So no, my kids are not just grinding numbers. They’re setting up the equation from real-world problems, and then solving it.
Based on the progress my kids made at home, doesn’t it seem like something is wrong with the curriculum at the school?
It’s not the fault of the teachers. But I just don’t see the rigor the administrators keep talking about.
I realize it’s not easy to meet individual needs in a public school setting. But I remember when I moved to this district that a neighbor warned me, “They teach to the top here.”
Do they not teach to the top anymore?
Maybe we need a more individualized math program, perhaps with more opportunity for acceleration starting at the elementary school level.
But reform math sure doesn’t seem to answer anybody’s problem. The kids who might have had difficulty with math to begin with are bewildered by reform math because it’s not straightforward enough. It seems like nobody wins. And those who have a natural ability are leaned on so heavily to enrich everybody else.
Yet the adminstrators loudly proclaim that reform math is appropriate for everybody. That can’t possibly be the case, especially because it’s done in groups. It’s not individualized.
Now I spend some time researching and writing about the math problem, not for myself, but on behalf of other families to raise their awareness that we may not have such a great math program in place. Do I feel good about having to do that? Nope. I’m just trying to seek truth.
The best I can do is show you what happens when your kid gets a better curriculum. My kids aren’t geniuses. It’s just that Singapore and Saxon Math have high expectations for the ability of kids to do math. And they stick to the topic at hand. They are truly balanced programs because they emphasize understanding, too.
The woman at a recent BOE meeting proclaimed that we “can’t all be disciplined mathematicians.”
I think that’s setting our expectations too low from the starting gate.
(Now that I’ve written this, I think I’ll put it on my blog.)
Most of you know who I am, and if you don’t, it’s easy to find out. I’m not hiding anything.
I don’t use my name explicitly anymore out of deference to our teachers because it is such a painful topic. But I don’t hide it either.
It grieves me to know that some families either don’t realize the extent of the problem, or do realize it but can’t afford a good tutor. I don’t even blame them if they choose to look the other way and hope for the best. It seems a bit overwhelming. And it’s no fun to disagree with your child’s school.
>I agree with the above clarification about the hard-working BOE members.
I might not always agree with them. But I do think they’re trying to do the right thing.
It’s pefectly understandable for them to say “that’s not my area of expertise.”
>I dont agree at all I think the BOE are a bunch of “yes men” that only care about themselfs
>> The woman at a recent BOE meeting
> proclaimed that we “can’t all be
> disciplined mathematicians.”
>
> I think that’s setting our
> expectations too low from the
> starting gate.
I totally agree. We should be setting the bar high for all of our kids. Dumbing down the math instruction won’t help anyone in the long run.
>Hey, 10:16, why in the world does a 9 year old need to be doing algebra? Reading your post, it has occurred to me that much of the non-terc parents’ argument may be fueled by some parents’ over-achieving need to always be better than everyone else, to be “advanced,” to be doing MORE…that is, pushing kids to achieve more and more at earlier and earlier ages. Hmmm…something to think about.
As for the reform math problem that was presented (14×9) the methods given were EXACTLY how I would have solved the problem myself…perfectly logical to me. Really!
>much to my surprise there seems to be a lot of people in town very satisfied with failure ,this is NOT the Ridgewood I grew up in ..it is a very competitive world out there better prepare your children or they will turn in to a “bunch of spoiled bums”
>Someone asked about my 9 year old doing Algebra.
Lots of elementary school kids are capable of doing Algebra. It’s just that you’re not used to the idea because elementary schools don’t allow them to advance that far.
And the reason is simple–they don’t have licensed math educators on the elementary school level.
But it’s not uncommon at all for kids to be capable of this. These are the kids that will be our future engineers who hopefully will help solve global warming.
No this isn’t about pushing our kids. It’s about realizing that schools serve groups, not individuals. As parents we can do our kids a service educationally by remembering that they are individuals.
You might like to read “Developing Math Talent–A guide for Educating Gifted and Advanced Learners in Math.” It’s a real eye-opener about what kids are capable of outside the constraints of public education.
My big problem with my 9 year old is that it’s not enough that he understands the meaning of Pi, and it’s not enough that he realizes that Pi is an irrational number and that both 22/7 and 3.14 are only rough approximations. This kid wants to see the formal proof for Pi.
I had to tell him “That’s later, down the road, at higher levels of math. Besides, Mommy doesn’t know.”
🙂
>”…much of the non-terc parents’ argument may be fueled by some parents’ over-achieving need to always be better than everyone else, to be “advanced,” to be doing MORE”
Yes you’ve made your point beautifully. TERC is dumbed down.
>Times change and education should follow. Education has been slow to realize that every student learns differently. One way doesn’t fit them all. For example, you have visual, auditory, and tactile learners (Multiple Intelligence). The old fashion way did not always address the needs of all students. In regards to these reforms you will have students who will need more advance program, but doesn’t this happen in any teaching program (English)? However, when you address that teaching to the majority of the student is more beneficial than and just teaching the “smart” students, you will see the positives. By getting more students up to speed does not mean we are creating failure, in fact more student can find the enjoy in their studies. Just because we were taught one way back in the day doesn’t mean that is the best way to teach today. Like should we teach typing on typewriters instead of computers? No as it outdated. Again, change is not always bad. Many kids needed math tutors the old way too. Tutors have been around forever, and I bet there is no all-a-sudden spike in tutors in town (yes I know “ALL your friend’s kids have them” -ha). There are many educated scholars on both sides of this issue. It is good that you care about your kids, but you have to understand that one mold does not fit them all. Also, if you think the BOE is doing such a horrible job then please run. Ridgewood voted them in, so they can’t be too horrible. Before we can start to move ahead you have to put your hidden agendas and prejudices aside. Schools should teach a program that help the majority of the students and not just the ones that are gifted.
>Hey, 10:16, why in the world does a 9 year old need to be doing algebra? Reading your post, it has occurred to me that much of the non-terc parents’ argument may be fueled by some parents’ over-achieving need to always be better than everyone else, to be “advanced,” to be doing MORE
10:48, I’m not 10:16 but rather a Time Stamp To Be Named Later 🙂
To answer your question: personally, I don’t think this is about vanity on the part of parents or an over-inflated view of their kids or a misplaced need to be better than their neighbors.
I think this is about parents trying to get their kids ready for a highly competitive global labor market in the 21st century.
You can bet that there are hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of 9-year-olds in China and India who can do algebra right now. Plus thousands more in Japan, Korea and Singapore. In the year 2020, those kids will be competing with our kids for the high-paying jobs in a variety of industries.
imho that’s what the “math wars” are all about
>Thank you for that, time stamp. It’s so frustrating to do the best you can for your kids, and then be accused of trying to best other people.
But helping my kids achieve close to their potential? Absolutely. I value education. I value intellectualism. I value hard work.
I listed three kids but I actually have four. My fourth, who is age 15, is mentally handicapped. I want him to achieve his potential, too. He works very hard to do so. Should I not encourage him to be his best? This makes no sense.
If, for my kids, being at their best includes sailing through Algebra, or playing a musical instrument really well, how could that be a bad thing?
10:48, Do you have a kid that plays an instrument? Children in our district are not held to a ceiling in how well they’re allowed to play their instruments, are they? Yikes, can you imagine?
I hope that’s not what you’re suggesting about math ability.
>There are about 25,000 residents in Ridgewood and because we all can’t go to the board of education meetings we elect board members to represent us (the constituents) at these meetings. Instead the board members end up rubberstamping whatever the administration wants. In fact, they get downright uptight and angry when residents come before them to point out problems with curriculum, etc. Why is that?
>Hey, 10:16, why in the world does a 9 year old need to be doing algebra?
The TERC folks use the same argument that they are teaching our kids “algebra”. My kids was doing “algebra” in 2nd grade according to the TERC literature, but really he was just learning that 8-3 isn’t the same as 3-8. The TERC literature actually uses this as an example of “pre-algebraic” thinking.
My kid is not gifted and TERCs overuse of redundancy to solve problems only confused her.
Again, TERC doesn’t have enough content for gifted children and teachers too many methods to do the same thing for children who really could only master one or two. In second grade they spend 4 months counting with blocks, peas, paper clips and then spend only two or three weeks on the standard algorithm.
This program is not for every child. It’s for nobody. Even if a kids gets TERC, what the program omits will not be evident until he reaches High School. That’s when a poor Mathematical foundation will rear it’s ugly head.
I’m so tired of talking about “hands-on learners”. There is a huge population of children who could learn without having to “construct” the answer. That method only confuses those children; they want what is called “direct instruction”.
That’s when the teacher shows them how to solve the problem then they do it. Yes, it’s a radical concept, children who actually like to be shown in order to learn before they can solve a problem.
>ec is a saint and your are a anomynous time stamp.
She is out there with her sign in and you taunt her about her children.
Shame on you!!!
>”My sense is that TERC & the general move towards “new math” comes from educators & trends in education schools.”
Here’s a small case study on reform Math. California adopted Reform Math in 1992. California removed Reform Math in 1998.
The Connected Math Program and TERC Investigations are both not acceptable for use in the State of California.
This is not a “new trend”, it’s a bad old one.
And why would we want to be so hip and trendy with our kids education any way?
>Sorry to disagree here. But I didn’t see the BOE getting uptight and angry about us voicing our concerns regarding curriculum. And I was a very vocal participant.
They did, on the other hand, get upset about losing the superintendent they had worked hard to hire.
I believe that this was no one’s fault. At the time they were interviewing candidates, none of us and none of the BOE understood the gravity of the math problems, and none of us understood how entrenched reform math is in the constructivist philosophy.
It was late in the game when the broader issue of constructivism became apparent. Sadly, that was after the BOE made its choice. The BOE had no way of knowing about this whole constructivist thing. All they knew was that he had good credentials.
I don’t mean to open a can of worms here about the superintendent again.
BUT is it possible that sometimes when stuff happens, there is no one to blame? It was just poor timing, in my opinion. I wish we had known a year sooner, so that we could have specifically asked the BOE to avoid a constructivist.
Now, as for how the BOE is handling their PR afterward, that’s a different story. I think that for whatever reason, they’re blaming vocal taxpayers instead of owning up to the more nuanced, and more truthful picture, which is that the planets aligned badly.
Maybe the BOE just needs someone to blame. I make allowances for the fact that they’re very frustrated. They did do a lot of work.
But the math moms are not the enemy, and neither is the Board of Ed. If you want to blame someone, blame the idiots that created the reform math programs. I can’t figure out what they were thinking.
In Clintonesque style, I’d suggest we remember “It’s the curriculum, stupid.”
>ec I don’t agree with you at all on this one the BOE tries to suppress dissent and one google search would have showed you that Mr brooks was very controversial, and a bailer .After all he was run out of town at his last job..
>Yes they do need to become more web-savvy.
My hubby offered to help them out in this area. He’s a web marketing specialist. But they haven’t yet taken him up on the offer.
Never assume what people know about the web. Plenty of educated people still don’t know the basics, or they don’t realize its power as a resource.
>rhs parent, could u cite specific instances where the BOE suppressed dissent
>Ever hear of the math moms? Or the phone calls to parent who signed the petition?
or the letter from Frances Edwards that was painted as some kind or and attack letter or how about how this very blog was attacked for “tactics” give me a break I could go on all day but obvious you have not been paying attention.
>Yeah, the statement from the boe that was posted on the blog and in the newspapers sure did sound like they were upset and angry with their constituency because of problems with the curriculum and the loss of a new superintendent.
>btw Frances Edwards has a letter to the editor in today’s Ridgewood News, citing trends in math rankings for our 6 K-5 schools. Travell & Orchard have fallen significantly in performance compared to the other 4 schools. Seems like a reasonable argument to me.
>The rankings for Orchard and Travell are abysmal! How can our boe trustees and school administrators not be ashamed of those rankings? Willard, Ridge, Somerville and Hawes parents should be ecstatic that their children are not in Travell and Orchard when it comes to math.
>I’ll like to add this to your investigation PJ.
I am sure since you are researching, you will want to look at both sides of the issue.
I’ll like to take crdit but I actually found this on another website and it makes some very good points:
Did the report “A Nation At Risk” result from traditional or reform mathematics teaching and materials? … Do you believe Paulos published INNUMERACY in 1989 in anticipation of the NCTM Standards volume published that same year, or in response to a problem that already existed as a result of more traditional mathematics teaching and curricula?
The facts support the claim that while some people managed to learn mathematics as taught pretty universally in the US prior to the 1990s, many did not learn much mathematics that way and now fear and loathe the subject. You cannot put that on anything other than the traditional texts and pedagogies that failed to adequately engage and teach a sizable number of Americans.
Please comment on this.
Thanks
>3:04 (gw mom) makes a good point. I’ve discussed this with friends of ours in Travell, who are neutral when it comes to TERC. They say that at least TERC is an alternative to a way of teaching math that had left America behind in the world. Their reasoning is: why stick with an old method that’s proven to be a failure?
I’m a little more skeptical when it comes to TERC, but the opposing view (articulated so well by gw mom) is worth considering.
p.s. how is that book “Innumeracy”? I remember reading glowing reviews when it came out, but never picked it up.
>sorry to burst your bubble but they been screwing around with math for a long time remember the new math in the 1970’s ,Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman made fun of the stupid math programs in the 1960’s .this is a long standing issue
>”why stick with an old method that’s proven to be a failure?”
The last 50 years in this country created scientists, mathematicians and physicists who put a man on the moon, created the nuclear bomb and the personal computer.
If every English and Drama Major doesn’t understand calculus, that doesn’t mean Pre-reform Math education failed.
There are plenty of Math Professors at NYU Courant Institute who are working on Applied Mathematics who would say the traditional methods served them fine.
The harsh reality is that not everyone will understand Math on a higher level. Not everyone is gifted at speaking different Languages. Not everyone is a musical genius. Not everyone understands chemistry. Do I need to go on?
That’s the way our minds work, we can’t all be good at everything. Making Math friendly is equivalent to changing the rules of grammar because the English Language is too complicated. Ridiculous.
Wait, that’s right, I forgot, we aren’t teaching grammar because it’s too hard for those who are not language inclined to understand.
>”They say that at least TERC is an alternative to a way of teaching math that had left America behind in the world.”
TIMSS 2003 4th Grade students by country.
1. Signapore
2. Hong Kong SAR
3. Japan
4. Chinese Taipei
5. Belgium-Flemish
6. Netherlands
7. Latvia
8. Russian Federation
9. England
10. Hungary
11. United States(tied with Cyprus)
Only 12 other countries that particpated in the TIMMS test were after us.
When were behind?
>> When were (we) behind?
In 2003, according to the TIMSS results you posted.
Unless you consider finishing #11 out of #24 to be finishing ahead?
> The last 50 years in this country created scientists, mathematicians
> and physicists who put a man on the moon, created the nuclear bomb
> and the personal computer.
re: putting a man on the moon — actually, it was German schools who created many of those scientists — https://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/bio.html
re: creation of the nuclear bomb — Oppenheimer (American) led the Manhattan project, with significant help from Hans Bethe (Germany), Edward Teller (Austria), and Felix Bloch (Switzerland).
>Go onto http://www.wgquirk.com/TERC.html and you will get a great education about the failures of TERC. Its long, but well worthwhile. A friend, who teaches math forwarded this to me when she heard about the controversy in Ridgewood.
>The old method was not a “failure.” The failure was the inability of all teachers to teach it well.
Altering the material to make it more accessible to weaker teachers is a disservice to all children (and teachers), especially those who are eager and able to do (and teach) the real math. Ridgewood is lucky to have these capable teachers!
This is a huge problem with our present education system. It is getting “dumber” because it is recruiting less able individuals.
Did you know that the average SAT score for all students is 974, but for those who become teachers it is 910.
Sadly, this matters.
This grave problem with the public school system in general will continue until and unless we free the system from union control.
>The statistics, 12 out of 24, were used by the “Math Consultant” at the last Board of Ed meeting to say Reform math was working!!!
Since the introduction of the 1989 NCTM standards, are world rankings are not moving up and when the 2007 numbers come out, we may be heading down.
This is not a “new” type of Math instruction, it’s was created in the early 90s after 1989 NCTM standards were introduced. Ridgewood is adopting an “old” new program.
Our terrible world rankings are because of reform Math.
That’s the point, you silly goose.
>Leave the teachers alone. They could hate TERC and Connected Math and have no power to say so.
They could be quietly sitting on the sidelines hoping they get a quality curriculum so they can stop making so many copies to supplement.
Teachers are not the problem in Ridgewood, it’s the curriculum.
>That’s true. I’ve had teachers confide in me that they hate TERC.
But nobody wants to lose their job. I can’t say that I blame them.
>Have you heard of tenoir? No one loses their job because they speak up about curriculum…
>I haven’t heard the term “tenoir” but have heard the term “tenure.” The teachers should band together behind their union (NJEA/NEA — the most powerful union in America) and speak up. I guess it’s easier for them to sit in the background cowering and let the parents do their dirty work.
>’ec’ is not eric clapton…it’s linda moron.
>The reform Math side keeps saying the teachers need training to teach this stuff and training to teach the parents so they understand why it is so good.
Does any one in education out there know if the CMP2 course that the high school teacher took counted toward college credits for the “highly qualified” status?
Don’t rip me apart if I have this wrong, but a friend of mine told me that teachers need like 30 credits to be highly qualified to teach Mathematics. That may be on the elementary school level.
My question is … Is the town just sending them to “seminars” that don’t benefit them in terms of the Highly Qualified stuff they need for NCLB.
Would it be better for the teachers to put that money towards the true college tuition costs of classes that gave them credits.
My friend, a teacher, said that this highly qualified status is why the teachers can’t speak out. A lot of them don’t have it because they were educated years ago.