The New York Times is going to be surprised again

The New York Times is surprised 12/11/2013

In the Times today:

In past years, the College Board, which administers the program and the exams, has been justifiably criticized for requiring too much rote learning of a broad range of facts, and too little time for in-depth study, lab work or creative ventures. But now the board is beginning a drastic revision of its courses and exams, which will focus on the most important core concepts of a subject and leave more room for students and teachers to become more creative.

Even Gifted Students Can’t Keep Up
In Math and Science, the Best Fend for Themselves

Ostensibly, the New York Times editorial board believes AP courses are flawed and approves of the current effort to gut revise them.

Close reading of this passage, however, compels me to point out that the choice of the word "drastic" as the modifier for "revision" signals a certain ….. foreboding …. on the part of the Times.

Conclusion: the collective basal ganglia of the Times editorial board is crying out to be heard.

Naturals and strivers

To understand how talent and achievement are perceived, three experiments compared the assessments of “naturals” and “strivers." Professional musicians learned about two pianists, equal in achievement but who varied in the source of achievement: the “natural” with early evidence of high innate ability, versus the “striver” with early evidence of high motivation and perseverance (Experiment 1). Although musicians reported the strong belief that strivers will achieve over naturals, their preferences and beliefs showed the reverse pattern: they judged the natural performer to be more talented, more likely to succeed, and more hirable than the striver. In Experiment 2, this “naturalness bias” was observed again in experts but not in nonexperts, and replicated in a between-subjects design in Experiment 3. Together, these experiments show a bias favoring naturals over strivers even when the achievement is equal, and a dissociation between stated beliefs about achievement and actual choices in expert decision-makers.

Naturals and strivers: Preferences and beliefs about sources of achievement
Chia-Jung Tsay, Mahzarin R. Banaji Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47 (2011) 460–465

I wonder why this is?

Why would experts hold the bias (while believing they hold the opposite bias) while nonexperts don't?

Is this likely to be specific to the music world? (I have no idea.)

Preconceived notions about place value

(Cross-posted at Out in Left Field--with some great comments)

One thing that struck me about the math talks given at this weekend's New England Conference on the Gifted and Talented was the emphasis on manipulatives and the concerns about whether children understand place value. Are these the most appropriate things to be focusing on when it comes to students who are gifted in math? The mathematically gifted kids I know grasp place value and other aspects of arithmetic with only minimal exposure to manipulatives, and quickly advance to higher levels of abstraction by the time they hit first or second grade. But the education establishment seems bent on convincing itself that children--however gifted--don't understand place value.

Why would you want to convince yourself of this? Because it gives you an excuse not to teach the standard algorithms of arithmetic. If children don't understand place value, then they can't understand borrowing and carrying (regrouping), let alone column multiplication and long division. And unless they understand how these procedures work from the get-go, educators claim (though mathematicians disagree), using them will permanently harm their mathematical development.

So, given how nice it would be not to feel any pressure to teach the standard algorithms (because, let's admit it, they are rather a pain to teach), wouldn't it nice to convince ourselves that our elementary school students, however gifted in math, don't understand place value?

But how do you convince yourself of this? As that ground-breaking math education theorist Constance Kamii has shown, it's child's play. All you have to do is ask a child the right sort of ill-formed question. Here's how it works:

1. Show the child a number like this:

27

2. Place your finger on the left-most digit and ask the child what number it is.

3. When the child answers "two" rather than "twenty," immediately conclude that he or she doesn't understand place value.

4. Banish from your mind any suspicion that a child who can read "27" as "twenty-seven" might simultaneously (a) know that the "2" in "27" is what contributes to twenty-seven the value of twenty and (b) be assuming that you were asking about "2" as a number rather than about "2" as a digit.

20 years at the kitchen table

Karen H just emailed me this passage from a Malcolm Gladwell article on late bloomers:

We’d like to think that mundane matters like loyalty, steadfastness, and the willingness to keep writing checks to support what looks like failure have nothing to do with something as rarefied as genius.But sometimes genius is anything but rarefied; sometimes it’s just the thing that emerges after twenty years of working at your kitchen table.

full stop

Our school system has solved their efficiency problem by not only slowing gifted students but seemingly requiring them to stop all forward momentum. No acceleration and no 'enrichment' either. If you're done with an assignment alphabetize folders or tutor another student.

-Lisa


Same here. When full inclusion came six years ago, enrichment and in-class ability grouping were totally canceled in the elementary. Nothing above grade level can be offered. The old practice of going to a different class or grade to join an appropriate reading group was ended. If the student is done, s/he can read, draw, or navel gaze.

-lgm

My own district replaced the SRA math series with Math Trailblazers 6 years ago, eliminating achievement grouping as part of the package. Since Trailblazers moves more slowly than SRA, this meant that the advanced students were doubly decelerated. They lost their accelerated curriculum and they were now learning less in the regular curriculum than the non-accelerated kids had learned in the past.

Recently the superintendent told the school board that Trailblazers is built for and depends upon heterogeneous grouping; if you're going to have Trailblazers you can't have grouping and if you're going to have grouping you can't have Trailblazers.

So naturally she's committed to Trailblazers.

cranberry - define basic

cranberry wrote:

Define basic. Is it functioning on grade level, i.e., doing what a 5th grader is expected to do, when you're 10? If that's the definition, then what should one do with children who enter their 5th grade year above grade level? What are systems legally required to do?

Our school system doesn't have G&T, so that's never been an option for us. The school's answer has been, in general, that strong students should tutor weak students. Of course, a kid who's bored out of his gourd may not look like a strong student, because compliance with a rules based system may not make any sense to a bright 10 year old. Why should he pretend to make an effort, when the homework takes no effort? If the class matter is too easy, it will have no value for him -- or as much value as a worksheet requiring adults to name the days of the week would have for adults.

If a basic education means the provision of teachers and academic work, why must it fit the age, not the kid's academic level? Why must a 10 year old functioning at a 7th grade level attend 5th grade classes?

This is vitally important for our society. Just this week I saw an article citing a national shortage of nuclear engineers.

I submit that the kid who gets As on class tests, but doesn't hand in his homework, needs more interesting subject matter. Every student should have the privilege of being unable to ace tests. If students are passing tests with 100%, they aren't correctly placed, even if they're darned useful to others as tutors. On balance, they're more useful to society, in the long run, as nuclear engineers or lawyers, than as free, untrained tutors.

'switched on Mom' says they're rolling out initiatives down Montgomery County way

"Once a child is identified as being three years behind it shouldn't matter whether they are purple, from the planet Ork; they need placement that is appropriate to get them back on track. Anything less is just child abuse disguised as political correctness."

And yet where I live (Montgomery County, MD) the drive is precisely toward heterogeneous classrooms, and away from homogeneous grouping. They they are rolling out something called The Seven Keys to College Readiness. Benchmarks are being set that are unrealistic for some students, and too low for others. Advocates who call for more homogeneous grouping and a differentiated gifted curriculum are painted as elitists and even racists.

Elitists and racists, no doubt. Parents are stinkers.

Still and all, it could always be worse (and, if experience is a guide, it will be). At least the concept of college readiness has caught the attention of the folks running Montgomery schools.

Unlike here. The folks running my own district (per pupil spending: $26,718) will have no truck with college readiness.

Last fall I asked the administration to include "college preparation" on the new 21-page Strategic Plan.

They said no.

Actually, they didn't even say 'no.' What they said was:

The strategic plan does not have specific mention of college readiness or international benchmarks. However, as a practice we are reviewing the Standards for Success—which you know is based on University preparedness.

Yes, indeed, I do know. I happen to own the book. Also, I possess all of the pdf file downloads that comprise the book, and I know where to find them on my hard drive. Ed read the history standards & says they are sound.^*

So this is a terrific resource, and we can all sleep soundly at night knowing it is being "reviewed." But it's not on the Plan.

You can find all of the Standards for Success material here. (Click on "ordering information" for pdf files.) College work samples in English, Mathematics, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Second Languages here.





Universities Push to Influence State Tests for High School Students
Understanding University Success
review of College Knowledge by David Conley

^* for passersby: Ed is a historian

pissed off teacher on what good students need

I could write a book on this topic. My AP calculus students are for the most part exceptional math students. Many have never been taught to think. The emphasis in all their classes has been on scoring well on the Regents exam. So much emphasis is put on calculator use that some have forgotten basic arithmetic. One of my students has been in my class in 9th grade and I remember her doing all her calculations by hand with no difficulty. It took me months to wean her away from her calculator dependency.

Good students will be able to pass on their own, but they need guidance as much or even more than the weak ones. By ignoring this group, we are creating a bunch of intellectual idiots.

pissed off teacher

repeat, repeat

Good students will be able to pass on their own, but they need guidance as much or even more than the weak ones.

For Americans, this notion -- that good students need teaching as much or more than weak students -- is sooooo counterintuitive.

I don't say this as a criticism of the U.S., particularly. It's just the way things are. I first learned that other cultures don't think about talent & achievement the same way we do reading Stevenson & Stigler's The Learning Gap.

The cultural difference between American and Asian cultures on this question is so significant that the National Mathematics Advisory Panel report addressed it in its Fact Sheet:

Student Effort Is Important

Much of the public's "resignation" about mathematics education is based on the erroneous idea that success comes from inherent talent or ability in mathematics, not effort. A focus on the importance of effort in mathematics learning will improve outcomes. If children believe that their efforts to learn make them "smarter," they show greater persistence in mathematics learning.

Here's a study by David Uttal:

Abstract The poor mathematics performance of children in the United States has become a topic of national concern. Numerous studies have shown that American children consistently perform worse than their counterparts in many parts of the world. In contrast, children in China, Japan, Taiwan, and other Asian countries consistently perform at or near the top in international comparisons. This paper examines possible causes of the poor performance of American children and the excellent performance of Asian children. Contrary to the beliefs of many Americans, the East Asian advantage in mathematics is probably not due to a genetically-based advantage in mathematics. Instead, differences in beliefs about the role of genetics may be partly responsible. Asians strongly believe that effort plays a key role in determining a child's level of achievement, whereas Americans believe that innate ability is most important. In addition, despite the relatively poor performance of their children, American parents are substantially more satisfied with their children's performance than Asian parents. The American emphasis on the role of innate ability may have several consequences for children's achievement. For example, it may lead children to fear making errors and to expend less effort on mathematics than their Asian counterparts. As research on genetic influences on behavior, traits, and abilities increases scientists should be careful to ensure that the public understands that genetics does not directly determine the exact level of a child's potential achievement.

Beliefs about genetic influences on mathematics achievement: a cross-cultural comparison
Genetica November 02, 2004

rich schools & biology

This leads me to a topic I have meaning to get posted for months: Richard Elmore has found that wealthy schools are particularly committed to biological explanations of student performance:

In more affluent communities, I also found that variations in student performance were frequently taken for granted. Instead of being seen as a challenge to the teachers’ practice, these differences were used to classify students as more or less talented. Access to high-level courses was intentionally limited, reinforcing the view that talent, not instruction, was the basis of student achievement.

What (so-called) low-performing schools can teach (so-called) high-performing schools
by Richard Elmore
National Staff Development Council VOL. 27, NO. 2 SPRING 2006 schools by

Ditto that.

My all-time favorite experience of this phenomenon (I've had many) was the day Ed and I met with the Earth science teacher and the chair of the science department discuss C's erratic grades in the class, which ranged from A to F.

Their explanation: "C. can't think inferentially."

Unfortunately I wasn't quick enough on my feet to ask why it was he could think inferentially on A & B days but not on C, D, & F days.

Probably because I am a real American.


and see: Carol Dweck: The Secret to Raising Smart Kids

politically incorrect

from Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us by Daniel Koretz --

As one colleague once put it simply, in politically incorrect terms, "Smart kids do well on tests."
p. 126

Daniel Koretz is Professor of Education at Harvard.

Harvard.

Where 75% of the entering class scores 700 or above on SAT reading, writing, and/or math.

I don't think we'll be seeing GATE programs staging a comeback any time soon.

revenge of the C student

from Education Week

Robert J. Sternberg often writes about a lecture-style psychology course he took as a college freshman in which he got a C. “There is a famous Sternberg in psychology,” the professor told him at the time, “and it looks like there won’t be another.”

To Mr. Sternberg, the vignette illustrates that conventional assessments don’t measure all the abilities students need to succeed in life.

A nationally known psychologist, he has spent much of his career designing new measures that might more accurately capture the full range of students’ intellectual potential at the university level.

Now, a team of Yale University researchers is using the same ideas to rethink the tests that schools use to identify pupils for gifted and talented programs in elementary schools.

The team’s Aurora Battery, named for the colorful spectrums created by the northern and southern lights, is being translated and tested with tens of thousands of 9- to 12-year-olds, not only in the United States, but also in England, India, Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and other countries.

If the preliminary results from those tests are borne out, its developers say, the new assessment could yield a very different pool of gifted students—one that includes a higher proportion of students from traditionally underrepresented minority groups than is often the case now.

[snip]

“This test has the potential to capture a more diverse population of students with a more varied and better-qualified array of skills,” said Elena L. Grigorenko, a psychology professor and the leader of the Yale study team in New Haven, Conn.

[snip]

Traditional intelligence tests, these researchers say, measure only a narrow subset: memory and analytical skills. Also known as “g” for general intellectual ability, those skills come in handy for comparing and contrasting, analyzing, judging, and classifying, and they are the kinds of abilities that teachers tend to value and emphasize in the classroom.

If people who score high on such measures succeed later on in life—and studies show that they often do—it’s partly because the educational system is geared to reward their particular mental skills, Mr. Sternberg said.

Someone should alert Robert Sternberg to the fact that this problem has been solved. Once you've got Connected Math, block scheduling, and portfolio assessment the kids who got straight-As back in the day become reliable B students.

Implement the middle school model in your town et voilà. IQ gap gone.

In its entirety, Aurora is a comprehensive battery that includes a group-administered paper-and-pencil test, a parent interview, a scale for teacher rating of students, and some observation items. The paper-and-pencil test gauges creativity, for instance, by asking students to imagine what objects might say to one another if they could talk, or to generate a story plot to fit an abstract illustration on a children’s-book cover.

A question assessing students’ practical skills with numbers directs test-takers to draw a line mapping the shortest route between a friend’s house and a movie theater.

Ideas of Practical and Creative IQ Underlie New Tests of Giftedness
by Debra Viadero
Education Week
Vol. 27, Issue 38, Pages 1,16

At last!

A standardized test that can tell me whether any of my kids has the sense it takes to come in out of the rain.

Seeing as how our family motto is no common sense-y, I'm guessing no.

histogeomegraph: preventing the tragedy of content isolation

from Minneapolis, Vicky S sends this poster session from the upcoming NAGC convention:

Presentation Title Histogeomegraph: Connecting History, Geometry, and Writing (listed under "National Presentations")

Presenters Betty K. Wood, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR; Abby Dragland, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR

Category/Topic Math & Science

Level of Session Intermediate

Date/Time 11/9/2007 2:45 PM - 3:45 PM

Location Minneapolis Convention Center - Lower Level

Description

Research shows that the use of interdisciplinary units in teaching skills is more effective than teaching skills in isolation. Eliminating content isolation helps students recognize the interconnectedness of subjects. Euler, Descartes, Escher, Pascal, Plato, Carroll, Dudeney, and Loyd are examples of ancient to contemporary individuals who made contributions to the study of mathematics. Discovering the history of the person, playing with their mathematics, and reporting the findings can be incorporated into exciting activities. The objective of this session is to make teachers comfortable with combining these elements into meaningful activities. They receive examples of activities from these historic personalities

Isn't it Dave Barry who always says you can't make this stuff up?

gifted

Gifted Kid proves negative exponents

With Catherine's encouragement, I've been blogging about my nine-year-old mathematically gifted kid. I call him GK for short. Here's our math lesson from this morning:

GK proves negative exponents.

It is Catherine's theory that how our schools treat our gifted can be a pretty good measure of academic rigor in general.

I would add that we can learn a good deal about mathematical thinking, and all its various forms, from observing the gifted kids. The problem is keeping up with them. That's why my blog is called "Clueless Mom of Gifted Kid."



update from Catherine:

I asked Barry whether this is a proof - it is!

Yes, that would constitute a proof, and even though it proves it for 3 ^(-2) one can see that it extends to all numbers. A more general proof would be that since a^m/a^n = a^(m-n). If n > m, then m-n is negative. Since it's the same as dividing a^m by a^n, one can see that there are m a's in the numerator and n a's in the denominator. Through cancellation one is left with 1/a^(m-n).

There are more rigorous and formal proofs but the above is suitable for an algebra 1 course.

Independent George to the rescue

re: Norwegian IQ study as future "proof" that peer-tutoring and heterogeneous grouping are really, really good for gifted children:

The sociobiological argument against heterogeneous grouping is that siblings share 25% common genes, and therefore have a biological stake in each other's success. This is not the case within a heterogenous peer group, where others would be viewed as a competitive threat to their survival.

Excellent!


Cain and Abel
Independent George to the rescue

E-mail to the powers that be

This morning, I sent this e-mail to the Supt., Dir of Curriculum, and all of the Board of Ed members.

As part of the Board's review of professional development and curriculum this evening, I was wondering if you would consider focusing at least one full day of professional development next year to the needs of gifted learners in our schools?

Since the demise of [our] well-regarded gifted learning program four years ago, which directly served about 100 students in grades K-8, very little has been implemented to ensure that every child's learning needs are being met.

Add to this the disturbing conclusion of a 2005 study that found 68% of Connecticut teachers hold erroneous beliefs about the characteristics of gifted students. Moreover, a disturbingly small percentage of teachers in Connecticut believe that they have received adequate pre-service and in-service professional development to teach a differentiated curriculum to gifted students in the regular classroom. I've attached a short synopsis of current research that supports these conclusions.

Even when teachers are given some training in differentiation and curriculum modification, they are reluctant to implement these practices in their classroom, according to a 2003 study. In fact, the study found that teachers are unwilling to eliminate previously mastered curriculum material for fear that student achievement on State tests could drop. This, despite research that shows high ability learners show no decline in achievement test scores even when 40-50% of the curriculum is eliminated in at least one subject area.

The 2003 Minnesota study recommends that teachers receive not only professional development targeted to gifted learners, but also follow-up support so that they can actually make improvements in their classroom instruction. Stephanie Hirsch, Deputy Executive Director of the National Staff Development Council stated, "Training without follow up is malpractice."

I urge you to consider a more aggressive teacher training and support program to better meet the needs of gifted learners. We are fortunate to be quite close to the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, located at the University of Connecticut at Storrs. We need only take better advantage of the resources located close to home to improve the quality of education for our most able students.

I don't hold out a lot of hope on this one. But it's probably good just to keep things from falling to far off the radar screen. Here's a link to the research synopsis that was attached to the e-mail.

questions and answers from Niki Hayes

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS on Reformist Math and Its Students … the Disadvantaged ~ Boys ~ the Gifted ~ Special Needs and ELL…
And On Politics & Power ~ And How to Convert a Non-Believer

By Nakonia (Niki) Hayes

(These answers are based on generalities, which are used to reflect patterns. There are always exceptions to generalities, but patterns do allow us to offer predictions about outcomes. I now avoid using the term "progressive" because I don't find the results of reformists' math to be "progressive.")

1)
Q: Why is the achievement gap growing?

A: Disadvantaged students of all colors live in environments that require survival on a day-to-day basis. Survival in poverty is concrete, whereas survival in school and work is usually abstract. Mental models must be built with basic strategies to teach organizational skills as well as concepts of abstraction—such as issues of time, space, appropriate language according to its setting, and part-to-whole relationships (cause and effect), according to Dr. Ruby Payne.¹

In addition, the “hidden rules” of each environment, which are the unspoken cues and habits of a group or place, should be taught directly, rather than by discovery. Students and parents in poverty usually do not know the hidden rules of the middle class, which has been the dominant view within public education.

Thinking patterns of deprived learners, whether due to economic or emotional circumstances, are considered random or “episodic” and are often based on feelings, which can result in flight or fight. Therefore, it is cultural deprivation (the lack of adult-led mediated learning experiences that connect both the what and the why of a lesson), and not cultural differences, that is a primary cause of learning deficiencies, according to Prof. Reuven Feuerstein.²

By turning mathematics learning into a discovery process, the sequential and logical thinking of the discipline is lost to learners from poverty situations. They also lose opportunities to learn planned, specific steps modeled by adults for successful outcomes.


2)
Q: Since we know boys and girls have different learning styles, is reform math designed to teach to these differences?

A: No. The literary and discussion-based learning style of reformist education depends on verbal intelligence, which is correlated to girls’ learning styles. Group work and “processing” are also considered female learning traits.

Girls, who have been underrepresented in math and science, are expected to feel better about math with the reformist approach. This, in turn, is expected to encourage more women to enter mathematics and science fields.

Boys are goal-directed, action-oriented, and more independent learners. Sharing feelings, defending decisions, and debating details are not recognized male traits. Long appreciated for their “natural abilities” in math and science, boys are resisting the reformist approach with its emphasis on discussion and written explanations.

Literary-oriented teachers, predominantly female, who admit disliking math (and being weak in math skills), feel more comfortable teaching reform mathematics. It is subjective with more interpretations allowed for answers. However, it is more difficult to teach reform mathematics effectively, according to education leaders, themselves, in the field.


3)
Q: How is reform mathematics education working with English language learners (ELL)?

A: ELL students are unable to participate fully in the English literary-based lessons of reform math. Computation, with which ELL students can often be successful (since skills of math and music are international languages), is ignored or denigrated in reformist math.


4)
Q: How does reform mathematics work with learners in Special Education and those with ADHD or gifted traits?

A: Both special education and ADHD learners need specific, goal-directed instruction. Losing track of discussions or processes is a common characteristic of students in both groups. A common reminder for their teachers is to “Act; don’t yak.”

Excessive color, pictures, and graphics in books (or classrooms) create distractions and more confusion for students who already have trouble following directions or one train of thought.

Gifted students are the most likely to succeed with the “whole” learning of reform math because of their ability to work with abstraction. However, at some point they must also learn basic skills, not only of the content area, but skills on “how to learn.” Otherwise, they often become underperforming when confronted by a topic they don’t comprehend easily. They resist learning what they consider tedious skills, as do most learners, but these can ultimately provide the learned analysis of operations needed to solve problems.


5)
Q: Should the primary functions of mathematics education be to help learners feel successful in mathematics, and to support a declared, social engineering plan to establish egalitarianism among students?

A: The purpose of mathematics is to teach respect for its historical role and its benefits in building a culture and society across all domains of life. If the curriculum is designed to comfort individuals’ feelings, rather than to prepare them for the rigor of college or a competitive job market, that should be made clear in the math materials. (This is clearly stated by Jaime Escalante.


6)
Q: Is the failure of reform mathematics the fault of teachers, the curriculum, or both?

A: Schools of education and school districts say the fault lies with teachers’ lack of preparation in reform methods. They maintain the curriculum doesn’t matter if teachers are not prepared to teach it. There can be no argument with this statement. Yet, the claim that math curriculum isn’t important, that “books don’t teach,” is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

There have been and always will be those who learn from classic literature and ancient math texts without the guidance of a teacher. There are also millions who study the Torah, Koran, and Bible in the privacy of their homes. Many civilizations have been based on traditional, centuries-old books. Teachers are indeed golden, but user-friendly and ageless lessons in books should be honored, not discounted.


7)
Q : Why do teachers trained in schools of education that promote reform instruction and who have entered the field in the past 15 years need intensive professional development? Why should this teacher “remediation” be a district’s expense?

A: I don’t know. Maybe the schools of education can answer this question.


8)
Q: Do supporters of basic skills instruction want to replace the conceptual math approach of the reform educators?

A: No. They want basic skills to be a respected partner in all mathematics curriculum, especially at the elementary level. Basic skills are not to be “supplemental” lessons, inserted only when thought necessary, but fully integrated.


9)
Q: Why are supporters of reform mathematics so resistant to including a well-planned program of basic skills?

A: Reformists maintain they do include basic skills. Yet, their actions indicate a rigid adherence to what is perceived as “pure” reform mathematics, which dismisses the validity of learning the mechanics of basic skills. The opposition to basic skills instruction was carved in stone in the 1989 NCTM Standards, the bible of today’s reform mathematics doctrine. The 2000 NCTM Standards supposedly lightened the criticism of learning basic skills but still insists that methodology of teaching (the how or process) is paramount to the learning of content (the what or product).

Obtaining specific examples from reformists of basic skills instruction in their chosen publications is difficult. Having them show specifically why certain non-reform publications (Saxon, Singapore Math) do not support state standards is also elusive.

The newest NCTM publication, Focal Points, supposedly proposes a new focus on basic skills. They do not. They do recommend a more limited number of topics to be taught at each elementary grade level. The question of "skill content" of those topics is still untouched.


10)
Q: What are the costs of changing or continuing the reform math programs?

A: Reform math publications, researched and published since 1991, have been supported by $83 million from the National Science Foundation and multi-millions from other governmental agencies and private resources. This has created powerful political and economic relationships (allies) among funding agencies and their recipients—education leaders, universities, and private individuals—now involved in the “education business.”

For example, changing a state's mathematics curriculum would likely mean 1) revising the state’s reform-based standards, 2) state tests that are aligned with those standards, and 3) changing schools of education in their focus on the reform approach in training teachers. Plus, 4) new professional development programs must be designed for those educators trained in the reform philosophy.

Then there’s the 5) textbook/teaching materials situation. Educational Leadership magazine reported in April 2002 that it takes $20 million to get a completely new textbook into the education system. That’s a major expenditure for profit-making companies.

Transforming reform mathematics in the U.S. will indeed be costly, but how do we compare those costs with the mistakes that created the present crisis in mathematics education? Other countries are facing the same challenges. Israel has recently piloted Singapore Math in several schools and hope to name it as their state curriculum.³ It will replace the reform math they adopted from the United States 30 years ago and which, they believe, has led to their drop from first place on the in 1964 Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) to 28th in the 1999.

The U.S. has paid an exorbitant price in dollars and human capital for the last 15 years of reform mathematics. It is said the whole language movement of the 1970s and 1980s damaged a generation of learners in the basic skills of reading and writing. The same is now being said about today’s reformist “whole math.”

When 50 percent of students entering community colleges and 25-30 percent entering a public university must take remedial math, as they do now across the country, we must admit such learning deficits and remedial expenses for individuals, colleges and businesses are unacceptable. To continue operating “on faith” that progressive mathematics will eventually work —if teachers are just trained properly—is also unacceptable.


11)
Q: What would it take to make you a believer in the NCTM-sponsored reform mathematics?

A: A preponderance of evidence showing disaggregated data from state test scores in schools where teachers have used the reformist/constructivist ideology in grades K-5, and where those students had received no tutoring in basic skills outside of the classroom. With 15 years to draw upon, there should be some evidence to present to non-believers.


References:
¹ www.ahaprocess.com, Dr. Ruby Payne’s training and work with children and adults from poverty
² www.icelp.org, Prof. Reuven Feuerstein’s theory on mediated learning
³ Israel’s adoption of Singapore Math

About the author: Nakonia (Niki) Hayes recently retired after working 30 years in public education as a teacher (mathematics, special education, journalism), counselor, and principal and 17 years in fields of journalism. She can be reached at nikihayes@clearwire.net

quick math quiz

Quick Math Quiz in the NYT.

Clearly, I'm not ready for the Fields medal. I needed a pencil and paper to do half of them. And, I'm not eight.


update

Here's the article.

more education quotes

Enrichment is the speed bump of education. It slows down the fast learners just enough for everyone else to catch up.

Our school system ensures that half the kids learn half the material half the time.

The only true accountability in education is at roll call.

Lowering standards is more cost effective than raising performance.

Entry from the Educators Thesaurus:

Main Entry: research
Part of Speech: noun
Synonyms: opinion, conjecture, assumption, imagining, wishful thinking

Education schools scientific method:

1. Draw conclusion
2. Perform experiment
3. Analyze data
4. Eliminate contradicting data
5. Reanalyze data
6. Eliminate the rest of the data
7. Invent data
8. Publish conclusion

Note: Steps 2 - 7 are optional

If we really wanted No Child Left Behind, we would stop teaching everyone.

Diversity ensures that everyone is different in the same way.