Misleading their public
On February 9th, 2007, I posted a blog entitled "More on Math." Within that blog is the following link to a Youtube video dealing with constructivist math issues. The link, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvSFunUjx0, deals with math in Washington state, but applies here as well. On January 20th, I also posted a link to a site that shows the confusion that results from constructivist math programs, such as Everyday Math. That link is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI. Everyday Math is used across D11 and math chair Dora Gonzales continues to push this harmful program.
In the fall of 2006, the D11 administration published an analysis of math programs used in D11. Specifically, staff performed an analysis of Saxon Math compared to Everyday Math. Copies of this study were provided to those of us who were on the board at the time. The conclusions of this comparison are shown in the following page from that report:
Under "Conclusion," the report states, "After reviewing the limited data that is available, it appears that of the two math programs examined, one is no more effective than the other."
The report also states that, "Note that the school that has the higher percent of trained teachers is also the school with the higher percent of growth from 04 to 05 in each matched set of schools."
The table below shows the gains made by each school and the percent of teachers trained in the math program used by the school.
First of all, the data used by D11, as stated in the performance review, was taken from 5th grade test results for each school. While the Saxon Math schools show a 11% gain in math scores compared to a 14% gain for the Everyday Math schools, the administration concludes that there is no significant difference between the programs.
Based on data available at the Colorado Department of Education web site, the data on the above table for each school is incorrect. The gains on the Saxon table, according to D11's own figures, should be: Ivywild, 31%, Bates, 1%, and Rogers, 8%. The gains for EDM should be: Adams, 16%, Jackson, 7%, and Monroe, 18%. The correct averages should be 14% gains for each set of schools.
Based on the administration's conclusion that teacher training matters, note that the Everyday Math schools have significantly more staff training than the Saxon schools, yet the performance of schools using both programs, according to D11, is the same.
The conclusion of this study are almost irrelevant, because the damage caused by constructivist programs such as Everyday Math are manifest at the middle and high school levels where it becomes apparent that students do not know their basic math facts. That argument is made well by college level math instructors world wide, as I have shown in previous posts.
Having written all of that, D11 posted a written response to the Youtube videos on its web site. This response can be found at http://www.d11.org/doi/math/Facts%20Behind%20the%20Drama.doc. In the D11 response, this pronouncement can be found:
"Our own data reveals that of the math textbooks that are currently in use, Scotts Foresman, Macmillan McGraw-Hill, Saxon, Everyday Math, Houghton Mifflin, Addison Wesley, and Harcourt Brace, Everyday Math has demonstrated, on average, a higher percentage of student growth in all the elementary math standards assessed."
This statement is completely false based on D11's own data. The report clearly indicates that D11 could not find a difference using the limited data available.
The D11 response also says this:
"The research on brain compatible learning has led to some of the most popular math publishers including alternate methods of instruction that may be more appropriate for individual learners."
D11 leaders will not explain how this new brain knowledge has led to poorer and poorer math performance since the introduction of constructivist programs.
It is sad, but not at all surprising, that rather than do what is right, which is to remove damaging math programs from the district, D11 administration has chosen to place false information on its web site to present the illusion that its failed math programs are actually working.
Another disturbing finding on the D11 math page is this comment by Dora Gonzales. This was a featured speaker at a conference attended by Gonzales:
"Doug Clements, a leading educator in early childhood education, mathematics pedagogy, and the use of computers in education, http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/faculty/viewfaculty.asp?id=7 ."
Doug Clements is a leading proponent for calculators in the classroom. While Gonzales and other D11 administrators try to tell parents that calculators are required for 2d graders, but not really used, Clements pushes calculator use as low as Kindergarten. He published a paper in which he pushes calculator and computer use for kids at all ages. This paper can be found at http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/RP/PDFs/ECE_Comp_Math.pdf.
While D11 administrators spend time and energy misleading the public, math proficiency in the district continues to deteriorate. It is apparently much easier for the administrators to "pretend" that all is well rather than make the decision to move to math instruction that actually works.
Fact: Constructivist math programs in D11 are harming kids as they move through middle school, high school, and college.
Fact: D11 administration is doing everything possible to hang onto and increase the use of constructivist math programs.
In the fall of 2006, the D11 administration published an analysis of math programs used in D11. Specifically, staff performed an analysis of Saxon Math compared to Everyday Math. Copies of this study were provided to those of us who were on the board at the time. The conclusions of this comparison are shown in the following page from that report:
Under "Conclusion," the report states, "After reviewing the limited data that is available, it appears that of the two math programs examined, one is no more effective than the other."The report also states that, "Note that the school that has the higher percent of trained teachers is also the school with the higher percent of growth from 04 to 05 in each matched set of schools."
The table below shows the gains made by each school and the percent of teachers trained in the math program used by the school.
First of all, the data used by D11, as stated in the performance review, was taken from 5th grade test results for each school. While the Saxon Math schools show a 11% gain in math scores compared to a 14% gain for the Everyday Math schools, the administration concludes that there is no significant difference between the programs.
Based on data available at the Colorado Department of Education web site, the data on the above table for each school is incorrect. The gains on the Saxon table, according to D11's own figures, should be: Ivywild, 31%, Bates, 1%, and Rogers, 8%. The gains for EDM should be: Adams, 16%, Jackson, 7%, and Monroe, 18%. The correct averages should be 14% gains for each set of schools.
Based on the administration's conclusion that teacher training matters, note that the Everyday Math schools have significantly more staff training than the Saxon schools, yet the performance of schools using both programs, according to D11, is the same.
The conclusion of this study are almost irrelevant, because the damage caused by constructivist programs such as Everyday Math are manifest at the middle and high school levels where it becomes apparent that students do not know their basic math facts. That argument is made well by college level math instructors world wide, as I have shown in previous posts.
Having written all of that, D11 posted a written response to the Youtube videos on its web site. This response can be found at http://www.d11.org/doi/math/Facts%20Behind%20the%20Drama.doc. In the D11 response, this pronouncement can be found:
"Our own data reveals that of the math textbooks that are currently in use, Scotts Foresman, Macmillan McGraw-Hill, Saxon, Everyday Math, Houghton Mifflin, Addison Wesley, and Harcourt Brace, Everyday Math has demonstrated, on average, a higher percentage of student growth in all the elementary math standards assessed."
This statement is completely false based on D11's own data. The report clearly indicates that D11 could not find a difference using the limited data available.
The D11 response also says this:
"The research on brain compatible learning has led to some of the most popular math publishers including alternate methods of instruction that may be more appropriate for individual learners."
D11 leaders will not explain how this new brain knowledge has led to poorer and poorer math performance since the introduction of constructivist programs.
It is sad, but not at all surprising, that rather than do what is right, which is to remove damaging math programs from the district, D11 administration has chosen to place false information on its web site to present the illusion that its failed math programs are actually working.
Another disturbing finding on the D11 math page is this comment by Dora Gonzales. This was a featured speaker at a conference attended by Gonzales:
"Doug Clements, a leading educator in early childhood education, mathematics pedagogy, and the use of computers in education, http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/faculty/viewfaculty.asp?id=7 ."
Doug Clements is a leading proponent for calculators in the classroom. While Gonzales and other D11 administrators try to tell parents that calculators are required for 2d graders, but not really used, Clements pushes calculator use as low as Kindergarten. He published a paper in which he pushes calculator and computer use for kids at all ages. This paper can be found at http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/RP/PDFs/ECE_Comp_Math.pdf.
While D11 administrators spend time and energy misleading the public, math proficiency in the district continues to deteriorate. It is apparently much easier for the administrators to "pretend" that all is well rather than make the decision to move to math instruction that actually works.
Fact: Constructivist math programs in D11 are harming kids as they move through middle school, high school, and college.
Fact: D11 administration is doing everything possible to hang onto and increase the use of constructivist math programs.
posted by Craig Cox | 10:36 PM
8 Comments:
Craig: If that is the "data," D-11is relying on in their position paper justifying the use of Everyday Math, there's another problem - one year's worth of data doesn't tell you much. It can vary greatly depending on the kids in the grade.
It is interesting that they talk about "research on brain compatible learning," because I've read a number of studies showing that kids learn best with Direct Instruction instead of discovery learning, which is what Everyday Math is based on. For example, in a research article published in "Psychological Science," in 2004, Volume 15-Number 10, titled "The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instructions, Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning," David Klahr, from the Dept. of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, and Milena Nigam from the Center for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, concluded, based upon their research, that direct instruction trumped discovery learning. The following is a quote from the Abstract of this article: "We found not only that many more children learned from direct instruction than from discovery learning, but also that when asked to make broader, richer scientific judgments, the many children who learned about experimental design from direct instruction performed as well as those few children who discovered the method on their own. These results challenge predictions derived from the presumed superiority of discovery approaches in teaching young children basic procedures for early scientific investigations."
Now, tell me again, why does D-11 continue to champion a math program which tells teachers kids need to "discover" their own procedures and algorithms, that teachers shouldn't teach, just facilitate, and practice and memorizing of facts are just "tedious drills?"
dont stop fighting for Saxon. you are fighting the good fight.
check out
www.mathematicallycorrect.com
Great web site, DB. There is a lot of good information in there. It is great to see parents fighting so hard to get a solid math education for their kids. At the same time, it is sad that public school districts are fighting against these parents.
Carla, as you know, D11 tends to do what is easiest and not what is best. Also as you know, many of the D11 math teachers are fighting an uphill battle against the administrators who are wed to constructivism.
The district is in the process of realigning curriculum and finding two resources that are best for our students that ALL schools will use. I know this was a great topic to slam the district about for about three years but please get with the program and become informed again, instead of spouting rhetoric from days gone by. Teachers are on the committees and looking at books to find the ones that they can teach from and children can learn from. Saxon is drill and skill material. It's not been proven to make exceedingly good gains with children of the minority and gap status. WE have to be open to methods and materials that will make the most gains with ALL students, not revert back to the status quo materials of "the good ol' days." It wasn't working for a large population of our students which is why there was a shift to constructivist methods. There is a good balance that can be found with BOTH, yet I know that only parents that you are interested in allowing any kind of choice to are the WASP parents needing to separate their children from the "have nots."
Anony, take a look at the statistics. Your constructivist tripe isn't working for those gap students that you pretend to care so much about. At our last town hall meeting, an elementary teacher stated that the constructivist program (Everyday Math) worked just fine "for those schools north of Constitution Avenue, but it doesn't work south of Constitution." You are wrong again. What statistics are you prepared to show us that indicate that your constructivist approach is working for students of any race or background?
The only other repsonse to your ridiculous reply is that you are delusional. Which school do your kids attend? What "choice" are you willing to offer those gap kids that concern you so much? What "choice" options do you support?
The district has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars "realigning" curriculum for years. Mary Thurman and Bev Johnson assured me that this money being spent on "realignment" was actually money well spent. Now you are suggesting that you are just now getting around to realignment? Thanks for the urgency.
The problem is far from a problem of the past. Until you prove that you are competent enough to provide math instruction that works, this problem is nowhere near over. Just because you are sitting around on yet another committee having discussions about an issue that should have been addressed years ago does not mean that the issue is over. 12% black proficiencies using your constructivist math? How does that mean that you care about minorities? The fact that you are still defending a math program that has been proven to fail kids tells me that there is not much hope that your committee will do much more than drink more district Koolaid by selecting more constructivist programs. Get ready to purchase those calculators, mom and dad.
Isn't it sad that anonymous turns ANY discussion into a personal attack? Nowhere in this thread did you allude to better serving white Protestant kids and neglecting brown Baptists.
What a loser. No doubt in my mind its a teacher, and probably not a very good one.
As to the topic of this post: if the Math Council is acknowledging their errors of years past, how can we, local school districts, ignore the news? Get rid of the calculators, bring back slide rules and REALLY TEACH these kids stuff they will need and use for the rest of their lives.
Call me old fashioned, but some things are never going to change -like sums and totals and angles and equations and...........
Wonder what type of math CIVA Charter School is using. They are at 9% P&A. Lets hold them accountable also!
Absolutely - let's hold them accountable. In fact, charters are held accountable by the very nature of how they derive their income. As fewer and fewer students attend CIVA, they will have to find a way to improve their academic posture or they will cease to exist due to lack of funds. When the neighborhood schools fail to perform and they lose students, CFO Glenn Gustafson simply robs the other schools in the district to keep those schools afloat.
Go ahead, Anony, tell us which neighborhood schools you wish to hold accountable and how you would accomplish that accountability.
Post a Comment
<< Home