>Concerned parent about math finds a poignant article
SUMS IT UP… pun intended
Apr 8, 2007
There is a war raging all around us, a war the United States cannot afford to lose. No one has died in this war, and no one is likely to. But there are casualties. The injuries are mental rather than physical, but the suffering is lifelong. I’m not referring to the global war on terror or the war on drugs. I’m talking about the mathematics war.
While the United States is the world’s only superpower militarily, mathematically we are a second-rate power, and losing ground every year. In the math war, the superpowers are Singapore, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Belgium. In assessment after assessment, those countries prove that their weapons – fourth, eighth and 12th graders – are more accurate and advanced than our own. Their strategies are more focused. Their national resolve is stronger.
The debate in this country about mathematics education and curricula has been termed the math wars, but it is in reality a generally civil disagreement. There are two distinct sides in the debate, which for simplicity’s sake I’ll label “reformers” and “traditionalists.” Because I subscribe to the BLUF principle – Bottom Line Up Front – I’ll tell you now that I side with the traditionalists.
In this forum, I can’t possibly present all the relevant information necessary for you to make an informed decision on this issue. My goal is to pique your interest so that you will want to become better informed, will want to take a stand.
Why? Because the issue is critical to our nation’s ability to remain an economically advanced world power. Let’s face it: Math whizzes in Taiwan or Belgium will get good jobs in the global economy, but they are not going to grow up to become taxpaying supporters of the American baby-boomers’ social safety net. Only American math whizzes can be counted on to do that. We need to grow our own.
A bit of context is important. The reformers, representing the education establishment, believe learning “process” is more important than memorizing core knowledge. They see self-discovery as more important than getting the right answer. For them it’s the journey, not the destination.
Traditionalists, consisting mainly of parent groups and mathematicians, advocate teaching the traditional algorithms. They advocate clear, concrete standards based on actually solving math problems. The destination – getting the right answer – is important to traditionalists.
Fuzzy vs. clear
Two examples will help to make the difference clear.
One broad standard in an actual reformers’ curriculum states that students should “use computational tools and strategies fluently and estimate appropriately.” A similar statement in a traditional standards curriculum says: “The student will add and subtract with decimals through thousandths.”
Fuzzy standard on one side, clear and concise on the other.
One math project in a reformers’ program – the program used in many New Hampshire school districts – is called “My Special Number.” Sixth graders are told:
“Many people have a number they find interesting. Choose a whole number between 10 and 100 that you especially like. In your journal:
“Record your number.
“Explain why you chose that number.
“List three or four mathematical things about your number.
“List three or four connections you can make between your number and your world.
“At the end of the unit, your teacher will ask you to find an interesting way to report to the class about your special number.”
Sixth graders are given a month to complete this project.
To traditionalists, tools and context are important – in that order. Master the tools, put them in context. Reformers provide context, then attempt to guide students to discover the tools. This is cart-before-the-horse thinking.
The reformers’ approach is to have students devise their own methods for achieving a mathematical goal rather than have them learn the traditional algorithms. “By talking about problems in context, students can develop meaningful computational algorithms,” a reform standard states.
This is not true. If by “meaningful computational algorithms,” we mean simple, accurate and repeatable – things like the traditional addition algorithm, or long division, then the average student will never develop such an algorithm and should not have to try. Universal mathematical algorithms were developed ages ago by Archimedes, Euclid, Descartes and Pascal. There are not many budding Pascals in our school districts, but there are plenty of children capable of learning from the methods discovered by the great mathematicians in history.
Return to tradition
Traditional methods of teaching mathematics have proved their worth. While they could be tweaked, they should not be discarded.
Reformist curricula might make for an interesting doctoral dissertation, but they don’t hold up well when ivory tower meets bricks and mortar. In math education, America’s children once competed well with their foreign peers. But today our students’ mathematical performance earns them a place in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries. They are in the middle of the pack when less-developed nations are added.
What has changed during recent decades? The teaching philosophy. The reformers of the education establishment – Big Ed – took over. Billions of tax dollars have been spent on a social experiment in which the tried-and-true was discarded and the intellectually fashionable was foisted on schoolchildren.
This should spark outrage among both parents and taxpayers. It should trouble anyone counting on today’s students to get good jobs and pay taxes.
The best way to advance students’ conceptual thinking about mathematics is to have them learn and take advantage of the existing core of mathematical knowledge. This is the traditional approach: Students are taught, and made to master, the traditional algorithms.
With such tools, and with the guidance of good teachers, a student can, after 12 years of school, understand and apply mathematical principles that took scores of geniuses thousands of years to devise.
I urge you to learn more about the math wars, about how your school is teaching math, and to take a stand in favor of the traditional, proven methods.
(Ken Gorrell of Northfield works for a New Hampshire-based defense contractor.)
—— End of article
By KEN GORRELL
>We’re turning a corner here in Ridgewood. It’s time for the ordinary parent to say “Would you please teach my child traditional math this year? Thank you so kindly.”
It’s the safer thing, the teachers know how to do it (unless they’re fresh out of ed school) and it can’t be disputed, especially because some schools in our district DO teach traditional math. Therefore it can’t be argued that traditional math is inferior.
I urge ALL parents, regardless of your knowledge of math or background, to simply ask for the common-sense thing. Just politely ask your child’s teacher this fall for traditional math. And then refrain from discussion or argument. Leave total silence.
>Pjblogger–thank you for this public service.
Parents deserve to know what their kids are getting.
>Scott Garrett was mentioned in an editorial yesterday in the Wall Street Journal because of his bill to allow states to opt out of NCLB.
He’s one of a few Republicans who feel that NCLB has created lower standards and a “race to the bottom”.
The editorial is very good and available online if you have a subscription.
>Why does the BOE settle for second rate administrators? These people get their “degrees” from middle range institutions such as Montclair State, Rutgers, etc.
What district gets the high end people and how come we can’t compete for the top?
Is it because BOE members are so mediocre that the bar for them is near the bottom when it comes to personnel?
>This is a brilliant article explaining the traditional vs. reform math. Every Ridgewood parent of school aged children should educate themselves by reading this.
I was disappointed that our boe went ahead and purchased TERC 2 dismissive of your petition of 200 names. I have a feeling there could have been 1000 names on your petition and they would have gone ahead and ordered TERC 2. They have shown that they do not have the best interests of the children of Travell and Orchard schools. I’m glad my kids go to Ridge.
>For anyone who thought the comments on other threads about gender were out to lunch, here’s an actual professional development workshop outline from TERC, Inc. for teachers called What Is Equity? A Look into a Reform Math Classroom. Weaving Gender Equity into Math Reform.
Find the verbatim course content here.
The entire document is about how teachers are justified in spending more time with girls and non-white students in the name of equity.
What an insult to girls and non-white students that they should be perceived as needing extra help and alternative assessments. What are we really communicating to them?
This is way over the top.
>Here’s one of the high school curricula creeping into the nation’s schools. If we become familiar with their names, we can be on the alert when one of them slips into our BOE Agenda for approval in the future.
This one is called Mathematics: Modeling Our World (MMOW).
It replaces Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, and is featured as appropriate for “all students.” (Not just students that know arithmetic?)
The publisher of this one seems to contrast school with “the real world.”
I would have to agree. School is becoming surreal.
>And what exactly does this assignment teach sixth graders? And a month to do it?
This is an excellent article that clearly explains the differences between traditional and reform.
>Traditional math is hard and rightly so. It is hard to teach and hard to learn. Students need to be challenged and not given math that does not require the use of the brain. I have seen my children do their “reformed” math homework in no time at all and learn nothing. They can not apply this learning to the real world because they have learned nothiing. Yet when faced with the “traditional” style math they struggle until they get it and then … they can do the math in the grocery store!
Our students need the fundamentals. Why have them reinvent the wheel. Let them learn from others before them and then they will beable to go beyond.
>This is very scary for parents. Educators have too much power and they are using it to undermine intellectual ability while pursuing some vaunted notion of forced equality.
God made us different. Leave it alone!
>The correct link for the above ERIC abstract is What Is Equity? A Look into a Reform Math Classroom. Weaving Gender Equity into Math Reform.
>Look at the Descriptives on this course…
Descriptors: Educational Change; Elementary Education; Equal Education; Ethnicity; Gender Issues; Instructional Materials; Mathematics Curriculum; Mathematics Instruction; Sex Discrimination; Socioeconomic Status
When Mathematics is combined with Ethnicity and Gender Issues you have a problem.
I somehow don’t think they are saying the little white boys are not being treated fairly any more.
>11:54 said, “When Mathematics is combined with Ethnicity and Gender Issues you have a problem.”
Well then, wake up folks. Because math isn’t math anymore. It’s “the new civil rights prize.”
I kid you not. That expression “the new civil rights prize” appears on page two of the TERC, Inc. document cited above.
>Here’s a better version of the document. It’s a searchable PDF.
>There are so many inaccuracies in Mr. Gorrell’s comments it would take more time than it is worth. This is typical rhetoric of the unhappy parents. I would like to put one “bug” out there for consideration. We could also be competitive on the international tests if in fact the scores compared were within the same ethnic and socioecomomic groups. Or perhaps the “traditionalists” would like to make this really simple and only educate those that come to school ready to learn, middle and upper income status and homogenious. This wasn’t the concept Thomas Jefferson aspired to when he promoted education for all no matter the socioeconomic structure. Mr. Gorrell be a part of the solution rather than the problem. Get into the schools, open your mind to something more than an shop-keepers math.
>”Get into the schools, open your mind to something more than an shop-keepers math. “
Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce takes offense to this statement.
Also, where do you think we live? This is a white middle class community not the South Bronx.
>”We could also be competitive on the international tests if in fact the scores compared were within the same ethnic and socioecomomic groups. “
Yep. Singapore, China, Korea, Latvia and Belguim are much more wealthy countries than the United States.
>Go head TERC Jerks alienate everyone in town and screw up the once great school system
>Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce takes offense to this statement.
nice to see the chamber wake up for a change
>no facts just name calling form the TERCies
>Did some research on Ives Phd. dissertation, “The development of seventh graders’ conceptual understanding of geometry and spacial visualization abilities using mathematical representations with dynamic models” Sounds impressive , don’t it? Well all it really means is, “How can I teach girls to be more spacially aware like boys are naturally?”. Her dissertation committee consisted of three octogenarians who were happy to be lead around by the hand , and one, Tamara Lucas, head of the Montclair States Woman’s studies department/educational foundation (the grant accumulation department). Ms. Lucas has published radical feminist literature blaming teachers and the “system” for not incorporating minorities and immigrants into the school system citing widespread inequality and institutional indifference. She also blames teachers for not teaching right (ala TERC). She doesn’t like standards because they are institutionally devised. She says we should let the “children” discover their ways through school. I think you get her drift. It’s pretty obvious where Ives gets her “female only” approach to teaching and text books from.
There was only one other Ph.d. dissertation approved. It is called, “Factors that produce and reduce mathematics anxiety as perceived by seventh-grade females.”. At least she was honest.
Ives and Botsford have poisoned the Ridgewood School System with the feminist idolatry at the expense of ALL of our children. They should not be allowed to make one decision that would effect our children. In fact, their desicions that have been made going forward into the 2007 school year should be rescinded. Any woman who considers herself to be a feminist should realize that these two are off the deep end and harmful to your children. And any man who sees their children being used in this national pawn game should also get involved and stop the nonsense.
>”She says we should let the “children” discover their ways through school.”
This is called “unschooling” and is the most extreme form of homeschooling. Kids are left to their own devices.
I don’t kill myself to pay my taxes so my kids can be “unschooled.” I can do that myself for free.
I’m hoping that mainstream, otherwise trusting parents in Ridgewood will start to see that our district is waaaaay out there in its radical ideas for education.
It’s easy to overlook unless you start asking questions. And it’s easy to overlook if questioning the school system seems like a daunting, frightening, task.
How did we get here? Why are parents so intimidated? What’s the elephant in the living room that nobody’s noticing or commenting on?
Are we afraid to question the status quo? Afraid to question authority? How many PhD’s do you know of that have been dead wrong about something and ruined someone’s life as a result? It happens often enough.
No one is above reproach, regardless of their credentials.
It’s time for this educated community to get bold and ask questions en masse. The math moms are only the most visible of the disenfranchised.
>6:07 “Go head TERC Jerks alienate everyone in town and screw up the once great school system.”
You’ve got to be kidding. The BOE needs no help ruining the school system all by itself. It was they who reduced our standards to NJ’s lowly “proficient” status; it was they who hired botsford and ives; it was they who adopted feminist dogma-led education curricula; it was they who brought reformed math into our schools; it was they who decided to hire a constructivist guru as our next superintendent; it was they who refused to give our children textbooks; it was they who decided to “retrain” our smart teachers; it was they who made a non college graduate president of the BOARD.
We may be just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, but it’s the BOE that steared a once great school system into an iceberg.
>Bedtime story:
Once upon a time the Ridgewood school district was ranked in the top three of NJ. Then the big bad school administrators and board of education members started resting on their laurels and lowering our standards. And then they brought in open circle so we could all feel warm and fuzzy.
To be continued…
>The guys in Ridgewood are usually smart in one thing: how to make money (hopefully, year in and year out). The women in Ridgewood tend to have their fingers on the pulse of the entire life systems around them and how they affect their families. I think it’s time that the women of Ridgewood get their spouses involved in this issue. We need them!
>Good idea. I’m going to ask my husband to attend.
>Don’t ask him…tell him. 🙂
>”Don’t ask him…tell him. 🙂
8:17 AM”
Ditto
>Does anyone out there know how many days per year students in Singapore attend school? I heard it was approximately 280 – about 100 more than students in the US. Maybe we need to think about changing our school calendars and adding more days so our students, too, can get the benefit of a more thorough mathematics education like the students in Singapore.
>I hate to break the news to you, but what’s also true about Singapore is that it’s a given that parents have to get their kids outside math tutoring. It’s part of the culture.
Some of the tutoring is government paid, but many families pay for it themselvse.
They do a kind of curriculum that is what TERC was supposed to be only TERC fails miserably to measure up to Singapore’s curriculum. They’re not big on calculators over there, for instance.
But the upshot is that even though they do teach standard algorithms, and they do allow direct instruction of important concepts like place value, they spend so much time on deep understanding and word problems that they don’t leave quite enough time for the extra drill that some kids need.
Our situation here is far worse, because our kids aren’t even getting the basics. And here, direct instruction is taboo, oh and while we’re at it, let’s take away their textbooks and become “project-based” instead of “textbook-based.”
Our kids are not allowed to learn from teachers and not allowed to learn from a good textbook.
They’re only allowed to learn “from within.” What bull$%^t.
If they put Singapore math into our schools tomorrow, I’d be happy to supplement with private tutoring for extra drill and skill.
Instead, they have us all flocking to tutoring angrily, because we can’t figure out what our taxes are paying for.
>”Our kids are not allowed to learn from teachers and not allowed to learn from a good textbook.”
The new TERC2 program won’t provide Textbooks, just workbooks. So if parents where looking for guidance on how to do a problem, they won’t get it from those books.
How do you create live long learners if you don’t teach them to open and read a textbook?
>TERC has each and every child and teacher reinventing numerical systems that have been around since people first calculated numerical systems. Even if we add years to our school year, we would never catch up to Singapore or any place else on this here planet earth.
>a school district in Ct did a pilot program with Singapore Math — but decided against it because the young kids had accelerated so much the school educrats were unsure if they could find someone to teach the accelerated 5th,6th graders even beyond where they were at – as in teach algebra to these elementary school kids
so instead the educrats decided to sh&*&t can Singapore Math …better to race to the bottom of intellect than the top
oh, the teachers .. obviously those Ct teachers were doing a fantastic job … too bad their leaders werent
sound familiar Ridgewood?
great teachers
willing and capable students
involved parents
boat load of money
and the poorest set of leaders sailing the good ship public education toward mediocrity at best
happy sailing …
>In search of the best possible education, Americans already spend more than $5 billion a year on private tutoring. Now, with tutoring options included in the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education reform, the area is sure to become more of a growth enterprise than ever.
The U.S. Department of Education (DoEd) estimates NCLB will pump an additional $1 billion per year into public funding for tutoring. Many education consumers consider tutoring essential to filling in intellectual gaps left by modern schooling. A Newsweek poll in 1999 showed 42 percent of adults are convinced a “great need” exists for children to receive private tutoring outside school.
Encouragement for tutoring is part of NCLB’s emphasis on giving a greater range of options to families of children stuck in chronically failing federally subsidized schools. After a public school has failed for two straight years to make adequate progress toward meeting the state’s standards, low-income families are supposed to be offered the choice of a better-performing public school and a free ride to it. However, public schools so far are providing little real choice.
With a third year of failure, NCLB requires that school districts let parents use up to $1,000 of their Title I subsidy to purchase “supplemental services,”such as private tutoring. School officials must furnish parents a list of providers who have a “demonstrated record of effectiveness,” according to DoEd guidelines. This opening to private help could become the first genuine school choice directly aided by federal funds.
Stock Tip: Buy WPO They own Kaplan and Score Tutoring Centers