More on Math
The below link is another YouTube video on the topic of K-12 math. The video deals specifically with Washington state math issues, but you can easily substitute "Colorado" or "D11" for the word "Washington."
Some of the terms you will hear are IMP, CMP, and Everyday Math. Each of these curricula are used in D11. Coronado is one of the last high school holdouts to use IMP, even though all objective evidence shows that the IMP math hurts students. Holmes Middle School math teachers work hard to teach kids real math for 3 years, and then those students have to have their math skills eroded by a math department at Coronado that refuses to allow facts to prevent it from doing the wrong thing.
Everyday Math is used in about half the elementary schools in D11, and it is pushed by D11 math chair Dora Gonzales. Dora has seen the facts on this math, and she knows how damaging it is to students, yet she pushes it anyway. Coincidentally, Dora does not have elementary kids in D11 who are being harmed by this math.
It is ironic that the anti-parent/status quo crowd in D11 and across the nation despise the word "reform." Reformers are called "anti-public school" and are accused of trying to destroy our schools. When you hear the term "reform math" in this video, that term was invented by the educartel. Our reform slate was totally opposed to this junk math because common sense people can see clearly how damaging this is to students.
For the record, the teacher's labor union supports this junk math because they feel that it is easier for teachers to teach. Having children sit around in groups and "discover" equations together is apparently easier than teaching kids math skills and equations that have been in existence for centuries. As always, the labor union continues to look past the interests of kids.
As I have said before, Dora Gonzales needs to go, as does Mary Thurman for allowing this proven detrimental math curriculum to remain in D11. Terry Bishop continues to demonstrate a striking amount of lethargic leadership himself on this issue. He claims that he can't do anything about the math situation. As superintendent, Terry, what can you do?
The math link is below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvSFunUjx0
Some of the terms you will hear are IMP, CMP, and Everyday Math. Each of these curricula are used in D11. Coronado is one of the last high school holdouts to use IMP, even though all objective evidence shows that the IMP math hurts students. Holmes Middle School math teachers work hard to teach kids real math for 3 years, and then those students have to have their math skills eroded by a math department at Coronado that refuses to allow facts to prevent it from doing the wrong thing.
Everyday Math is used in about half the elementary schools in D11, and it is pushed by D11 math chair Dora Gonzales. Dora has seen the facts on this math, and she knows how damaging it is to students, yet she pushes it anyway. Coincidentally, Dora does not have elementary kids in D11 who are being harmed by this math.
It is ironic that the anti-parent/status quo crowd in D11 and across the nation despise the word "reform." Reformers are called "anti-public school" and are accused of trying to destroy our schools. When you hear the term "reform math" in this video, that term was invented by the educartel. Our reform slate was totally opposed to this junk math because common sense people can see clearly how damaging this is to students.
For the record, the teacher's labor union supports this junk math because they feel that it is easier for teachers to teach. Having children sit around in groups and "discover" equations together is apparently easier than teaching kids math skills and equations that have been in existence for centuries. As always, the labor union continues to look past the interests of kids.
As I have said before, Dora Gonzales needs to go, as does Mary Thurman for allowing this proven detrimental math curriculum to remain in D11. Terry Bishop continues to demonstrate a striking amount of lethargic leadership himself on this issue. He claims that he can't do anything about the math situation. As superintendent, Terry, what can you do?
The math link is below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvSFunUjx0
posted by Craig Cox | 10:16 AM
9 Comments:
Well, about 5 years ago now, I started expressing concern over Everyday Math. If you've watched the first video posted here, you'll see why I was concerned. Today, there's an article in the Gazette about cheating at the Air Force Academy, and in the body of the story, you find out that the current freshman class is really struggling in math and science. Ask yourselves what kind of kids are accepted to the Academy, and then ask yourself why so many of these stellar students can't do math. When will school districts start listening to colleges and universities who are receiving increasing numbers of kids who can't do math? And, when will they start listening to parents who see the junk that passes for math curricula and have to take things into their own hands to make sure their kids aren't innumerate?
It amazes me how you can continue to make up facts as you go along and assume they are true, Mr Cox and Ms Albers.
Here are the facts:
No program designed to date suits all of the needs of our diverse populations. The programs that you mention are good probrams, as evidenced by some of our schools that are using them acheiving 70-80% proficiency with them. The programs require that teachers are better prepared and better aware of their math. Infact, if you go back throught he minutes when Norm Ridder was here you will see him state that the curriculum was too hard for teachers to teach. If a teacher knows her math and uses these programs in conjunction to other rote programs, students do very well. It's not the curriculum, it's the teaching that goes with it. I can show you items from CSAP that come directly from these texts, so please don't tell me that they aren't preparing our kids.
Our Math program needs a lot of help to improve. We need guidance from better than what we are getting (shocker: I agree with you on the Math Instuctional admin person), we need more qualified math people teaching math and we need the same emphasis from the district directed at math that was directed at reading. Had you stayed in your seat Mr. Cox you might have found that you had support on your instructional ideas, minus the obnoxious put-downs of your counter part. Now we'll never know and you have the luxury of saying whatever you wish with no fact needed or accountablility on your part either.
“Make up facts and assume they are true.” The FACT is that I am placing facts on this blog, and that bothers you tremendously.
You are very adroit at setting up an argument that was not presented by me and then arguing against yourself. I believe that is commonly called the “straw man” technique. Nobody said that one program fits all. I came close to saying that these junk programs hurt all. The fact that “some of our schools” score in the 70-80% range using the new-new math programs proves nothing. There are 42 elementary schools listed on the D11 website under CSAP results. Each of those elementary schools has 3 grade levels tested in math. Here is a math fact: 3X42=126 classes tested. Of those 126 classes tested, only 49 individual classes of 3rd, 4th, or 5h graders hit a 70-80% proficient or above mark (PA). That equates to 39% of the classrooms tested in elementary school hitting your 70-80% mark. That is really something to brag about.
What is more telling is that in the middle schools, only Holmes hit the 70% mark or better for all 3 grade levels. Jenkins hit the 70% or better mark in grade 6. Guess what? Holmes has valiantly resisted pressure and threats from administration to use the new-new math curriculum. Jenkins, after those of us who were elected in 2003 held a math town hall, ridded itself of the new-new math, and now they are showing improvements. If these programs were so good, our kids would be better prepared for middle school.
Should we even talk about high school? The best high school breaks the 54% PA mark (Palmer), with the next best (Doherty) at 52%. Coronado, generally considered a decent high school, cannot break the 50% mark because its math department hangs on to the IMP and other failed math programs against the wishes of parents. So much for desiring parental input.
Using Norm Ridder’s comments simply furthers my argument. This new-new junk is so non-logical that teachers don’t even understand it to be able to teach it. Math is a very logical topic. Leave it to new-wave educrats to screw it up. The fact that it is hard for teachers to understand does not somehow make it quality curriculum. The opposite is true.
Somewhere along the line D11 is not preparing its students for math. You pointed out that some of these same new-new math questions are on the Colorado CSAP. First I will point out that Colorado’s CSAP gets a “D” as a national grade for a standardized test. Second, if this curriculum is so great, and if the CSAP contains questions from this curriculum, then why on earth are we only managing to have 39% of our 3-5 grade classrooms breaking 70% proficiency? Your answer is that your fellow teachers are not teaching math well. That very well may be the case. The administration won’t do anything to either retrain these teachers or to hold them accountable. Your labor union-purchased board won’t do anything to hold them accountable. What does your labor union recommend to fix the problem? You say that we need more quality math teachers, yet your labor union won’t allow the district to pay to get these quality math instructors. Under your socialist pay structure, quality teachers are worth no more than poor teachers who have done little more than hold down a chair for a couple of decades.
Thank you for admitting that without us reformers on the board, the board will do nothing to improve math (or any other academic area, for that matter). You had 3+ years to support our call for improved math in the district, but your labor union agenda would not allow you to support us. You didn’t have the guts, individually, to do what was right for kids by supporting us without the permission of the union bosses. Now that the people who you purchased are in control, you know for a FACT that they have no ideas, no thoughts, and no intention of doing anything for this district. But hey, I’ll bet they are getting along. That is all that matters, right?
Now who's setting up the straw man argument? You create issue upon issue when you write without even making points on topic. In the CSAP grading scale I could hardly give your ranting a partially proficient. Stick to the topic once in a while and maybe some middle ground can be found. But you're so busy trying to make the other guy look bad that you are the one with mud on your face.
I don't know what this board can or will do. I'm willing to allow them the courtesy of letting them prove themselves before I cast judgement. They were not bought with any union money as were the Shukites so please hang up that old tired mantra.
The Union had nothing to do with protecting any programs or making teachers less accountable either. If we had accomplished half of the things that you accuse us of we'd be very powerful indeed. You and I both know the truth and hiding behind the union label has not gotten you credibility anywhere.
The math program is not in trouble because we have to pay teachers in Science and Math more money. Why should any subject get more money? They are all equally important. The Literacy Act went into effect in 1998 and since that time all of the energy and effort has been tied into teaching reading and writing. Math, Science and Social Studies has taken a back seat to it all, especially at the elementary level where the Math Instructional leader says that we don't even need to teach math... "if they can't read they won't be able to do anything." When did teaching any subject (especially those important math foundations) become a multiple choice?
For your information, Jenkins has not backed away from the math program you mentioned. They use it in conjunction with the traditional books, both of which are written by Prentice Hall, a company that their Math person (and Sandy Shakes) works for.
Constructivism is not a math concept. It's used across the core subjects in various ways and methods. If it's done correctly, it's not kids teaching kids at all. It's a sharing of their learning carefully constructed and guided by the teacher. The teacher doesn't teach that way to not have to teach, they work harder by reaching more kids individually during the instructional period. I don't know where you and Ms. Albers get your data and quotes but I have never been in a classroom where teachers actively look for ways to avoid teaching. Most of our teachers work very hard to create a positive learning environment with challenging lessons for our children. Your negativity and lack of knowledge about what goes on in our classrooms is the very reason that unions exist, to protect teachers that are working hard and doing their jobs from your brand of criticism.
My union has never told me how to act or think, Mr. Cox. If they "bought boards" then why didn't your side show up to the polls and take them back? The public didn't buy your Union bad-guy labels and they know their teachers. I resent the projecting that you do onto unions because you couldn't muster a change of tide in the public's support of your agenda. You did the manly thing tho...ran away from a good fight because you didn't get your way. I commend Willie for sticking it out and fulfilling his charge, even when his compadres abandoned him. He's got guts and his heart was where it truly mattered...with the kids.
Anonymous, why is it that Craig and I aren’t afraid to put our names out there, but you hide behind anonymity? Is it because you accuse us of not having the facts, but it is you who do not?
You say that programs such as Everyday Math are good because some of the questions on CSAPs come from programs such as these; therefore, kids are being prepared. A little history:
Colorado math standards are based on the 1989 NCTM standards which promote the theory that computational fluency isn’t important, teachers should “facilitate” learning, not directly instruct, less time should be spent on memorizing, paper and pencil calculations, etc. These standards were not written by mathematicians. The NCTM has even had to back away from these failed standards as it evidenced by their “Focal Points” document issued last fall. Contrary to the philosophy of NCTM, mathematicians across the country stress that fluency in the basic operations is essential to success in higher level math. (And yes, I correspond regularly with a number of mathematicians from Stanford to Johns Hopkins University.)
CSAPs are written to reflect our math standards, so when our math standards are based on the failed 1989 NCTM standards, of course those are the types of questions you will see on the test. And, what do school districts then do? They opt for curricula based on these same failed NCTM standards since that’s what will be tested on CSAPs. Colorado’s math standards are weak – in fact, the Fordham Foundation gives Colorado math standards a “D” because of their lack of clarity and rigor. (Lest you think that Fordham has it out for Colorado, they give us an “A” on our geography standards.) Although I can understand school districts focusing on the short term gain of looking good on CSAPs, when are adults going to look at the fact that we are not providing kids with the foundational knowledge necessary to be successful in higher level math? If our standards really encouraged the type of foundational knowledge necessary to be successful later, why the huge drop-off in scores in the later grades?
When will constructivist apologists such as you, Anonymous, admit that perhaps the basic skills necessary for later excellence, are missing or minimized in reform math curricula? Having taught 4th and 5th grade “real” math, I can assure that such students can excel on CSAPs. If you teach kids real math, they can do the fuzzy math seen on CSAPs. Sadly, those kids who are taught fuzzy math can’t do real math when it counts later.
Finally, Anonymous, what would your fellow teachers say about your following condemnation of them as teachers?
“It's not the curriculum, it's the teaching that goes with it.”
I have to strongly disagree that the teachers are at fault here, and that curricula, and curricular philosophies aren’t the reason so many kids are failing at math. You say that if a teacher knows his/her material and supplements appropriately, kids will do fine. (Not born out by CSAP results in D-11, by the way.) However, most elementary school teachers do not have degrees in math. (Last I asked Dr. Thurman, D-11 was about on par with national averages of 7% or less.) If you have a strong math teacher and a good curriculum, kids will excel. Strong teacher and weak curriculum? The teacher will know what the kids need and they’ll still learn. Teacher not strong in math and good curriculum? Kids will most likely still learn. Weak teacher and bad curriculum? No hope for the kids.
"Now who's setting up the straw man argument? You create issue upon issue when you write without even making points on topic. In the CSAP grading scale I could hardly give your ranting a partially proficient. Stick to the topic once in a while and maybe some middle ground can be found. But you're so busy trying to make the other guy look bad that you are the one with mud on your face."
Craig: My CSAP information came directly from the D11 web site. Unless you claim the CSAP data there to be incorrect, I couldn't be more "on-topic." I'm not making anyone look bad if you are satisfied with the CSAP results the way they are. Based on what I know of you, you are satisfied. What is the middle ground on educating kids, by the way? Is it to pick and choose which kids receive an education based on income or race? Seems to me that we might already be in the middle somewhere.
"I don't know what this board can or will do. I'm willing to allow them the courtesy of letting them prove themselves before I cast judgement. They were not bought with any union money as were the Shukites so please hang up that old tired mantra."
Craig: Willing to give this board a chance and be courteous? How much time did you give the 2003 board before your labor union began to attack everything we said or did? Will you sit on your hands for 3 years before you begin to ask them to focus on math? Although I have covered and compared the campaign financing very thoroughly, I will remind you again that the 2003 campaign spent around $100,000 for 4 candidates. The 2005 campaign spent around $1.2 million to elect 3 labor union candidates. Your labor union kicked in over $200,000 for those 3, you had a big planning session with them at Sky Sox Stadium, and you vigorously campaigned for them, including funneling labor union dollars into the 527's. Get your facts straight, math teacher. (For the record, the "Shukites"(sic) were not purchased with union money).
"The Union had nothing to do with protecting any programs or making teachers less accountable either. If we had accomplished half of the things that you accuse us of we'd be very powerful indeed. You and I both know the truth and hiding behind the union label has not gotten you credibility anywhere."
Craig: If the labor union leadership had a heart for kids, they would demand that this junk curriculum be removed from the schools. They have never done that. The labor union protects bad teachers, not good teachers. Good teachers are in high demand, so they do not need protection from the evil moms and dads out there. An example could be that math teacher who did so poorly at West Middle School that she was going to be fired. The labor union stepped in and now she finds herself at East Middle School, fully protected and untouchable. You know her well.
"The math program is not in trouble because we have to pay teachers in Science and Math more money. Why should any subject get more money? They are all equally important. The Literacy Act went into effect in 1998 and since that time all of the energy and effort has been tied into teaching reading and writing. Math, Science and Social Studies has taken a back seat to it all, especially at the elementary level where the Math Instructional leader says that we don't even need to teach math... "if they can't read they won't be able to do anything." When did teaching any subject (especially those important math foundations) become a multiple choice?"
Craig: You hit a home run with this one, mostly. Don't be afraid to say the name "Dora Gonzales." Remember, you are protected. The head of math in D11 does not believe that math skills are important. Mary Thurman and Terry Bishop allow her to keep her job anyway. The literacy act is no excuse, by the way. Just because there is an emphasis on reading and writing, that does not mean that math should not be taught by math teachers at the secondary level, nor does it mean that math should not be taught during math instructional time in elementary school. Constructivist math still needs to go. Even the NCTM admitted that. As far as pay, when you have a crisis and you need to do something to address that crisis, it might be prudent to pay to bring in the experts who can help to fix that crisis. Put the interests of your public ahead of your little master agreement for a change.
"For your information, Jenkins has not backed away from the math program you mentioned. They use it in conjunction with the traditional books, both of which are written by Prentice Hall, a company that their Math person (and Sandy Shakes) works for."
Craig: ...and that is probably why Holmes keeps outperforming Jenkins. I am not at all clear as to why Sandy's employer has any relevance on this at all.
"Constructivism is not a math concept. It's used across the core subjects in various ways and methods. If it's done correctly, it's not kids teaching kids at all. It's a sharing of their learning carefully constructed and guided by the teacher. The teacher doesn't teach that way to not have to teach, they work harder by reaching more kids individually during the instructional period. I don't know where you and Ms. Albers get your data and quotes but I have never been in a classroom where teachers actively look for ways to avoid teaching. Most of our teachers work very hard to create a positive learning environment with challenging lessons for our children. Your negativity and lack of knowledge about what goes on in our classrooms is the very reason that unions exist, to protect teachers that are working hard and doing their jobs from your brand of criticism."
Craig: Your colleague Patsy O'Neal bragged to me that there are days when she doesn't even have to leave her seat because her kids teach the entire lesson to each other. That is where I get my quotes. You are the one who said that the curriculum is fine and that it is the teachers who are the problem. Go back and read your first post above. It is your negativity that you are arguing against, not mine. Yes, your labor union demands that teachers not be criticized. We taxpayers put $500 millon per year into D11, and we aren't allowed to offer any opinions on the performance of our schools and teachers. (By the way, let's see how things are going with 8th grade math at East where you teach...18% proficient or advanced. Quick, call the labor union before anyone offers a negative opinion on that performance). Maybe the military should get a union and then they can tell the taxpayers to stop criticizing the war effort.
"My union has never told me how to act or think, Mr. Cox. If they "bought boards" then why didn't your side show up to the polls and take them back? The public didn't buy your Union bad-guy labels and they know their teachers. I resent the projecting that you do onto unions because you couldn't muster a change of tide in the public's support of your agenda. You did the manly thing tho...ran away from a good fight because you didn't get your way. I commend Willie for sticking it out and fulfilling his charge, even when his compadres abandoned him. He's got guts and his heart was where it truly mattered...with the kids."
Craig: Wow, you have come 180 degrees on Willie. You were leading the charge to call him a racist when he criticized the performance of schools like yours. Remember that, right on the front steps of the administration building with the TV cameras rolling? You are correct, though, that Willie has a huge heart for kids Too bad that the rest of the board, (the labor union purchased part of the board) does not share that heart. I am flattered that you miss me on the board, by the way. I certainly would not want to sit there and fight for my beliefs, though, because fighting is bad, isn't it? Maybe you want me back because you need something and someone to stand against since you don't stand for anything meaningful. Manly, Lori? Isn't it you who can't muster the courage to use any name other than "Anonymous?" Don't worry, I'm not on the board anymore. After all, your labor union will continue to protect you. And on the topic of resentment, I'll bet that thousands of parents would resent the fact that you feel that the only way to show a concern for kids is to serve on the school board. Now this is just a guess, but I would bet that there are more parents who did not serve on the board than there are who did serve on the board. If my stepping down after 3 years is a sign of not caring, what does that say about those thousands who never served on the board at all, like yourself, for example?
For those of you that question the "facts" of Mr. Cox or Carla, here's another source with many facts on how the New-New Math is not preparing our kids. This is a real problem, and not some "chaos" invented by the "reformers".
Go to this website and educate yourself with the facts ...
http://mathematicallycorrect.com
Great website, Jeff. Below is the opening couple of paragraphs from that site:
"Mathematics achievement in America is far below what we would like it to be. Recent "reform" efforts only aggravate the problem. As a result, our children have less and less exposure to rigorous, content-rich mathematics .
The advocates of the new, fuzzy math have practiced their rhetoric well. They speak of higher-order thinking, conceptual understanding and solving problems, but they neglect the systematic mastery of the fundamental building blocks necessary for success in any of these areas. Their focus is on things like calculators, blocks, guesswork, and group activities and they shun things like algorithms and repeated practice. The new programs are shy on fundamentals and they also lack the mathematical depth and rigor that promotes greater achievement.
Concerned parents are in a state of dismay and have begun efforts to restore content, rigor, and genuinely high expectations to mathematics education. This site provides relevant background and information for parents, teachers, board members and the public from around the country."
Having been vocal on the shortcomings of math education in D-11, I frequently receive phone calls and/or emails from concerned parents, and am regularly stopped and asked quesitons about math in D-11. However, a recent story by one parent has really bothered me.
This parent had a student in a classroom of a high school constructivist adherent, i.e., teachers don't teach - kids should "construct" their own learning because it's more relevant, blah, blah, blah. The student was assigned to write a story about math in the real world, complete with a bibliography. (Yes, you should be concerned when math teachers are assigning English projects.) The student did fine on the body of the report, but was given an "F" on the bibliography, thus reducing the overall grade. When the parent confronted the teacher, the teacher had to admit that he/she had not taught the kids how to do a bibliography, but insisted that the student should have been able to figure it out from the syllabus.
This raises so many questions. Why are students writing papers about math instead of being taught math? Is it that the students are so strong on the basics that they can spend their time writing reports with bibliographies? Sadly, the answer is a resounding "No."
Anonymous, lest you accuse me again of not having the facts, let me say upfront that the following data comes fromt he D-11 website, specifically the links to school accountability reports. In these reports, you will find the average ACT scores for, among other subjects, math. Here are the average ACT math scores for the 5 major D-11 high schools:
20.06, 18.9, 18.5, 16.16, 16.04. So, why should that concern anyone?
Well, according to ACT, the college readiness benchmark for college level ALBEGRA (not calculus, not pre-calculus) is 22. So, the average D-11 high school junior (the year they take the ACT) is not ready to take college level algebra. This is particularly concerning when the normal course is for students to take algebra as 9th graders. Then again, when you find out that some students are spending time on group projects, on writing about math, on preparing bibliographies, don't you think there should be alarm bells going off that something is wrong? Sadly the answer is no. Parents with concerns are labeled as trouble makers, and students continue to be shortchanged of a quality math education. That's not to say there aren't very good math departments and math teachers out there. However, some continue to hold on to mathematical pedagogy and curricula that are proven failures. Parents need to start speaking up when they see their kids struggling in math.
Post a Comment
<< Home