GEORGIA adopts new Math approach

[marite]

What Xiggi describes is pedagogy (how to teach concepts and skills) not curriculum content (whether or not to teach algebra and geometry simultaneously, concurrently or sequentially). SAT tests curriculum, not pedagogy. It the curriculum is not aligned with the SAT (or some other test), a good teacher with good textbooks may not overcome the problem.

I agree with Xiggi that a large proportion of US math teachers are terrible. See Liping Ma , Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics (I sound like a broken record on this topic).

[tokenadult]

Here's the link to the book marite recommends, which I also recommend:

Amazon.com: Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States (Studies in Mathematical Thinking and Learning.): Liping Ma: Books

[xiggi]

Regarding the changes:

Georgia Standards - Mathematics Standards

http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDoc...87C2A69&Type=D

[xiggi]

Marite, I agree with you on the issues of pedagogy versus curriculum contents. I am certain that volumes have been written about the differences.

As far as the SAT, I would be extremely leery in using that test as an important component in the K-12 curriculum. The performance on standardized tests should be influenced by the knowledge gained through education. The tests serve as measurement tools in the same manner a nurse takes one's blood pressure or temperature. It can do little to nothing in addressing the symptoms of an ailing patient.

One pitfall is the entire "teaching to the test" syndrome. The oft-repeated excuse is that time devoted to ensuring children do well on a test is ... wasted time. The reality is that our basic instruction should provide the tools to students to pass ... all kinds of tests that measure a combination of knowledge and reasoning. Fwiw, it's that pesky reasoning that seems to remain so elusive. My theory is that the instruction that serves to develop logic and reasoning has been placed on the backburner, and well behind the sterile memorization of abstract and arcane facts.

[midmo]

goaliedad's comment (post 14) has hit upon an essential point, as least as far as I can determine in our local situation.

Those who have pushed Integrated Math at secondary schools (TERC at elementary, and Connected Math at middle) claim that the method mimics that used in other countries with better records at teaching math. The 'pushers' in this case, and probably everywhere, are university math-education professors.

Oddly enough, it has been impossible, locally, to locate a single highly educated person from any of those model countries who agrees that the supposedly similar system bears much resemblance to what they used when they were in school. Since this is a college town, we have many foreign-born/educated math, statistics, physics, engineering and economics professors from Asian and European countries who have children in our schools. Without exception, those families have not allowed their own children to be enrolled in the Integrated Math sequence at secondary level and are among the loudest voices currently trying to get rid of Everyday Math and Connected Math in our elementary and middle schools.

As they have explained it to me, it is true that each academic year in high school included some instruction in geometry as well as algebra, and some of the basic concepts of calculus were introduced during the earlier years as well, but the topics were nonetheless taught as separate topics, they used textbooks, standard algorithms were taught, and while they did not make exclusive use of the "sage on the stage" pedagogy, teachers were nonetheless considered the ultimate source of instruction.

At the risk of opening up a can of worms, I'll mention that when IM was introduced here, it was originally intended as a remedial approach for those students who came out of elementary school behind the curve in math skills. The composition of the student body in the 'remedial' track became a political hot potato, so the administration tried to make everyone take it, in order to eliminate the appearance of tracking by race and socio-economic status. When a hue and cry erupted, they established an 'honors' version of IM (meaning a student starts one year earlier in order to finish IM-4 in time to take a year of calculus), and that mollified enough parents that the IM system has muddled on, side by side with the traditional track.

We also have a nasty little local war going on in the media and on local education blogs (and it became part of a recent Board of Education race) about who is more qualified to comment on the type of math skills needed by high school graduates: math education professors, or professors of math, statistics, physics, engineering and economics, etc. who find it very handy if their students understand how to use simple algebraic formulas.

[binx]

Disclaimer - I don't know any of the details of this program - haven't read the links. I'm in Georgia, but don't have any more highschoolers.

My D did her first 3 years of HS in Germany, and only senior year here, in which she took AP Calc BC. (For reference: Got a B in the class, and a 3 on the exam, and a 4 on the AB subset. Enough to get her out of college math.)

In Germany, the math is integrated. It made it very difficult to know how to transfer her courses back to the US. Freshmen year, it helped in Algebra, because she'd already had algebra in the US in 8th grade. So she was able to keep up, despite the language difficulties. But she struggled in the geometry aspects, which her classmates had already begun a year or two earlier. By 11th grade, the integrated math was already including aspects of Calculus. Which is why we opted for the BC in senior year, in US, figuring she'd have a head start.

What we didn't count on was the huge gaps in her education. We thought they were due to language or translation difficulties (she'd learned the German words for functions, etc) - but after talking to others who had had similar experiences, we think that the German integrated math just leaves holes. Also, D found that she frequently had to learn the "long way" in Germany, simply because the students hadn't been taught the basics to understand the shortcuts, making things much harder than they needed to be. Fortunately, my H is a math whiz, and was able to supplement her schooling.

My concern for students facing this is primarily if they ever have to transfer to a different school system. I do hate the experimentation the schools go through - often programs chosen because of a superb sales job rather than a superb track record.

[marite]

Xiggi:

I agree with the caveat about teaching to the test. The concern I have is when people say that such and such curriculum is mediocre or even downright bad because students perform badly on standardized tests.
I remember an outstanding chemistry teacher at S's high school who refused to teach to the SAT subject test. The students' parents expressed deep concern about their children's ability to score high on that test. What yardsticks exist to gauge the quality of a particular curriculum or pedagogy? Are the ones currently used fair?

And, as others have hinted, the best curriculum in the world will not improve learning if the teachers remain poor. The question is not whether 3rd graders should learn fractions (curriculum); but whether teachers can teach fractions properly (pedagogy).

[dadx]

My theory is that the instruction that serves to develop logic and reasoning has been placed on the backburner, and well behind the sterile memorization of abstract and arcane facts.

Well, Xiggi, if that is true we are in even more dire straits than I thought, since almost any discussion of education from elementary, middle or secondary educators usually makes an emphatic point of how little they think of the ability to quickly recall ANY facts, let alone the arcane ones.

As an aside, for those interested, and who can find some subjects for an experiment, try this.......... Ask some otherwise articulate and bright-seeming 4th or 5th graders to answer "what is 9 x 7,..... or 8 sixes,..... or 5 x 7". [2x2 doesn't count] I guarantee you that you will learn all you need to know about the current state of math education. Even the "bright" kids are shockingly slow, if they can answer at all.

I found the discussion on the other recent thread decrying the use of "word" problems to be illluminating. Even in a forum filled with people who value education, there are apologists who don't seem to see that "word" problems are simply the problems of everyday life. It is people like these who have turned many math courses into "math appreciation" courses. Maybe the tide is turning and we can get rid of the fakirs who are running the education bureaucracy.

[xiggi]

Marite, again, I could not agree more.

Regarding the statement, "The question is not whether 3rd graders should learn fractions (curriculum); but whether teachers can teach fractions properly (pedagogy)." I'd like to point to a very surprising study by M. Carnoy, a Stanford professor. One of his international studies covered the academic performance of Cuba, an impoverished nation that seems to lack the resources we consider most basic. The surprising good performance in primary and elementary schools was tracked directly to the superior education, training, and supervision of the teachers.

Unfortunately, improving the teachers in the U.S, is much easier said than done, especially for non-fuzzy materials. Sadly enough, it appears that many of the people placed in the position to educate children or develop a curriculum have a love/hate relation with math. They love what it could mean to students, but have hated it throughout their own academic voyage, and probably sought to accomplish just the minimum required to pass and move on to better areas.

It's also this minimum of dedicated effort that undermines our schools. In the name of efficiency, we believe (erroneously) that we could reach the higher levels of other countries by merely being ... better. Because of our desire to offer well-balanced programs with sciences, with social studies, with music, with sports, with EC, and a slew of other matters that are quite distant from basic education, our schools simply cannot dedicate the time needed for the most important subjects of reading and math. How could the United States' average student with only 4 hours of classwork and little to no homework possibly match the performance of a student in Flemish Belgium who HAS to take 6 hours of math (or as high as 9 hours, if planning to attend college) ?

It's all a matter of priorities. We build high schools that look like glorifed country-clubs and stress the benefits of a well-rounded education. We do build athletic fields and amazing gyms. At the end of the day, a closer look at the average waist size and academic performance of Americans seems to indicate that, for once, our government called it right exactly 25 years ago, when A Nation at Risk was released. Fwiw, one of the recommendations of the report was that we should consider extending the length of our school year and daily instruction.

Could we do better by abandoning the short school year that is a vestige of yesterday's agrarian society? I doubt that very many high schoolers need the extended vacations and idle time that amount to more than 50% of the year to help their families picking cotton or strawberries. With more time in school, could we squeeze more basic instruction?

[marite]

Sadly enough, it appears that many of the people placed in the position to educate children or develop a curriculum have a love/hate relation with math. They love what it could mean to students, but have hated it throughout their own academic voyage

In my experience, this is very true. Many of the curricula are predicated on the idea that math is difficult and not likable, and so it must be packaged in more appealing fashion, with all sorts of bells and whistles. And many of the k-18 teachers are generalists or people who are good at ELA and social studies, but not math and science. In many countries, specialists are in charge of teaching their specialties earlier. They have a better grasp of the materials and can communicate them better.

[midmo]

marite and xiggi, what I have heard and read, repeatedly, is that the basic problem with some of the non-standard approaches at the elementary level is the lack of real understanding of math concepts on the part of many elementary teachers. How that has played out in our district is that it has become clear that the Everyday Math program cannot succeed without hiring many "math coaches" to assist the teachers in understanding what is expected of them, with lesson planning, and with in-class help with students. These are professional positions, which has increased the cost of elementary math education considerably. (The district does not have the money for the positions, so other in-class teaching positions are being eliminated in order to pay for the math coaches.)

The problem goes well beyond the length of the school day and the length of the school year; more ineffective teaching does not solve the problem. It would be more useful, IMO, to work on improving the math skills of students graduating from colleges of education.

Short of that, many believe that it is better to just stick with highly scripted programs that do not require so much from individual teachers.

[Atlmom]

My kids are not affected by these changes as they will start in H.S. next year with the first class of 9th graders. Parents for the most part are outraged, many leaving to go to privates or homeschooling planned. I think any plan is difficult in conjunction with no child left behind and this one will probably be one state left behind. Face it, many of the kids in public school struggle with basic arithmetic and the higher level thinking is probably great for the upper students either in gifted classes or AP level classes.

We are at a time where our workforce is nearly 50% hourly wage earners and soon to be OVER 50% hourly wage earners for the first time in history.

Georgia has done good things with the Hope scholarshp program, free pre-k program, and free SAT prep for all students online....and still they lag in the basement. Why? because many of the students dont know basic math.

I know a few years ago they went to teaching all students algebra in 8th grade and that was a disaster. Many students are not there yet and can't do basic math much less with equations using x and y.

Too often the publics jump on the latest bandwagon and change entire curriculums only to discover later they were wrong. Oh well, just one generation's education down the toilet. Whole language is a very good example and kids knew no grammar and could not write after that program.

This is just the latest shade of lipstick Georgia is trying to put on a pig...call it the japanese method to make it sound good....when what they need to do is teach the basic math. In the end they will go back to it.

[marite]

It would be more useful, IMO, to work on improving the math skills of students graduating from colleges of education.

I absolutely agree with you. And one of the problems I see is that many k-8 teachers are good at teaching ELA and social studies and that is why they're hired, because literacy is considered the foundation for every kind of learning. As a result, strong math skills are not valued as highly among prospective teachers.

The highly scripted method is not a panacea. I recall the utterly panicked look on a 5th grade teacher's face when S came up with a different approach to a problem from the one she'd learned from the book. S showed that there could be different ways of solving the same problem, but she only knew the one from the book (she was, however, a stellar humanities teacher).

[midmo]

Atlmom, I glanced at the links about the new GA program, and it seems that the Japanese link is the lip service being paid to streamlining the number of topics being taught. That is supposedly a feature of the Japanese approach. However, the GA description then goes on to say the new curriculum will add extensive statistics instruction, will require writing about math and must include 'reading across the curriculum', meaning all students will be required to read books about math--that doesn't sound streamlined. And, I'm pretty sure the Japanese do not concentrate on writing and reading skills in their math classes.

I think posters like marite might also appreciate the paragraph about how no student will be allowed to accelerate in the future (beyond the one-year accelerated top track). Forced equalization.

[xiggi]

A small tidbit I just read:

From Texas Challenges City on Math Curriculum - November 20, 2007 - The New York Sun

November 20, 2007

The state of Texas has dropped a math curriculum that is mandated for use in New York City schools, saying it was leaving public school graduates unprepared for college.

The curriculum, called Everyday Mathematics, became the standard for elementary students in New York City when Mayor Bloomberg took control of the public schools in 2003.

About three million students across the country now use the program, including students in 28 Texas school districts, and industry estimates show it holds the greatest market share of any lower-grade math textbook, nearly 20%. But Texas officials said districts from Dallas to El Paso will likely be forced to drop it altogether after the Lone Star State's Board of Education voted to stop financing the third-grade textbook, which failed to teach students even basic multiplication tables, a majority of members charged.

One board member, Terri Leo, who is also a Texas public school teacher, called the textbook "the very worst book that we had submitted." This year, the board of education received 163 textbooks for consideration.

Texas officials said Everyday Math's publisher, McGraw Hill, began scrambling to keep its curriculum on the state's okay list the minute board members indicated they might vote it off. After concerns were first raised at a long meeting last Thursday, McGraw Hill officials arrived the next morning at 9 a.m. sharp with seven full sets of additions to the text, including new worksheets and teacher guides, state board members who attended the meeting said.

"Our educators are making choices which ultimately have the consequence of barring a huge number of kids from high-paying jobs," a computer science professor at New York University, Alan Siegel, said. "It's that simple, and I applaud Texas for standing up to this."

Mr. Siegel, who has advised the city schools and a federal group on math, is one of several New York professors who have opposed Everyday Math, calling it poor preparation for the kinds of college courses they teach.