National Panel confirms that D11 math approach is flawed
The final report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel is in, and once again, defenders of fuzzy mathematics instruction, including the D11 administration, are shown to be supporting a flawed curriculum.
Dora Gonzales, D11 math chair, pushes curriculum that calls for “familiarity” with math concepts instead of mastery. She pushes curriculum that uses a “spiraling” technique of teaching. In other words, students are briefly introduced to math concepts during one school year, with the hope that at some point over several years, they will become familiar with that concept due to the fact that they will briefly touch on the topic again at some future date. Gonzales and other traditional math critics claim that it is not important for students to actually master math facts and processes during their early school years. The National panel concludes that this thinking is outright wrong.
As to the issue of mastering math facts, the national panel report states: “By the end of the elementary grades, children should have a robust sense of number. This sense of number must include understanding place value, and the ability to compose and decompose whole numbers. It must clearly include a grasp of the meaning of the basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, including use of the commutative, associative, and distributive properties; the ability to perform these operations efficiently; and the knowledge of how to apply the operations to problem solving. Computational facility rests on the automatic recall of addition and related subtraction facts, and of multiplication and related division facts. It requires fluency with the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Fluent use of the algorithms not only depends on the automatic recall of number facts but also reinforces it.”
How about the spiraling approach that is so favored by the fuzzy math crowd? The report says this: “International studies show that high-achieving nations teach for mastery in a few topics, in comparison with the U.S. mile-wide-inch-deep curriculum. A coherent progression, with an emphasis on mastery of key topics, should become the norm in elementary and middle school mathematics curricula. There should be a de-emphasis on a spiral approach in mathematics that continually revisits topics year after year without closure.”
I published a math survey on this blog several months ago which showed that mathematicians around the world have very strong opinions about fuzzy math curriculum, and those opinions demonstrate that they do not like this new-new math. The national report says this: “Publishers must ensure the mathematical accuracy of their materials. Those involved with developing mathematics textbooks and related instructional materials need to engage mathematicians, as well as mathematics educators, in writing, editing, and reviewing these materials.”
The evidence on math is clear: D11 is not using solid curriculum, and it is not properly serving its students. Don’t expect this national report to cause any change for the better in the district, however. The administration and board members don’t pay attention to math facts or statistics. It is easier to explain away the facts than it is to face the reality that nothing short of a curriculum overhaul and good old fashioned hard work will be needed to fix the D11 math crisis.
Dora Gonzales, D11 math chair, pushes curriculum that calls for “familiarity” with math concepts instead of mastery. She pushes curriculum that uses a “spiraling” technique of teaching. In other words, students are briefly introduced to math concepts during one school year, with the hope that at some point over several years, they will become familiar with that concept due to the fact that they will briefly touch on the topic again at some future date. Gonzales and other traditional math critics claim that it is not important for students to actually master math facts and processes during their early school years. The National panel concludes that this thinking is outright wrong.
As to the issue of mastering math facts, the national panel report states: “By the end of the elementary grades, children should have a robust sense of number. This sense of number must include understanding place value, and the ability to compose and decompose whole numbers. It must clearly include a grasp of the meaning of the basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, including use of the commutative, associative, and distributive properties; the ability to perform these operations efficiently; and the knowledge of how to apply the operations to problem solving. Computational facility rests on the automatic recall of addition and related subtraction facts, and of multiplication and related division facts. It requires fluency with the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Fluent use of the algorithms not only depends on the automatic recall of number facts but also reinforces it.”
How about the spiraling approach that is so favored by the fuzzy math crowd? The report says this: “International studies show that high-achieving nations teach for mastery in a few topics, in comparison with the U.S. mile-wide-inch-deep curriculum. A coherent progression, with an emphasis on mastery of key topics, should become the norm in elementary and middle school mathematics curricula. There should be a de-emphasis on a spiral approach in mathematics that continually revisits topics year after year without closure.”
I published a math survey on this blog several months ago which showed that mathematicians around the world have very strong opinions about fuzzy math curriculum, and those opinions demonstrate that they do not like this new-new math. The national report says this: “Publishers must ensure the mathematical accuracy of their materials. Those involved with developing mathematics textbooks and related instructional materials need to engage mathematicians, as well as mathematics educators, in writing, editing, and reviewing these materials.”
The evidence on math is clear: D11 is not using solid curriculum, and it is not properly serving its students. Don’t expect this national report to cause any change for the better in the district, however. The administration and board members don’t pay attention to math facts or statistics. It is easier to explain away the facts than it is to face the reality that nothing short of a curriculum overhaul and good old fashioned hard work will be needed to fix the D11 math crisis.
posted by Craig Cox | 8:09 PM
2 Comments:
Craig:
Dig a little and you will find a lot of angst about this report - mostly among those who have propogated and lived off fuzzy math for almost two decades. Dig a little further, and you will find that many of the most vocal proponents of fuzzy math make a tidy living off the same - designing curricula, doing non-scientifically valid "research" on the efficacy of these programs, hiring out to school districts as math experts/facilitators/workshop leaders. Look at the most vocal opponents of fuzzy math: parents like you and me, people with strong backgrounds in math or science, or mathematicians at the university level who, by and large, donate their time to fighting fuzzy math with no expectation of remuneration.
Thank you for highlighting one of the most important statements in the NMP report - that line which deals with the need for fluency with "the standard" algorithms for addition/subtraction/multiplication and division. The program that I have fought against - Everyday Math - does not believe standard algorithms are all that important. It teaches, as its focus algorithms in multiplication, for instance, the partial products and lattice methods, and it never does introduce the standard algorithm for division. The program is defective on multiple levels, yet D-11 admin continues to encourage schools to purchase and implement it.
The biggest problem, of course, is that there is no accountability at any level of District 11, or most school districts, when bad curricular choices are made and when children are not educated. Perhaps D-11 will surprise us both, look at the data (real data, not fuzzy, non-scientifically valid data), and do the right thing by the kids. I'm not holding my breath. Are you?
I'm not holding my breath at all, and there is no reason to believe that the board or administration will take the right action here. D11 administration and labor union purchased boards do not have a track record of doing what is best fr the students. They do have a history of doing what takes the least effort and of doing what puts the most money in administrator pockets.
Post a Comment
<< Home