Some other ideas to throw out here:

Is it better to try and relate to parents based on how they learned math? Is this a pro- or a con-?

Is this a "know your audience" issue?

Do most parents feel woefully unskilled at basic arithmetic, fractions, algebra? If so, do you need to approach them differently than those who do feel appropriate skilled in arithmetic?

I think, to the right person, this basic argument works: "they are not teaching in a way that allows us to help teach our own kids. They don't teach long division; they don't teach times tables. How can we, as parents, help kids do their homework if they can't teach them along the lines of the basics we were taught?"

Now, a lot of parents might feel "well, maybe they know best" but parts of them will resonate with their own feeling of helplessness--and will want to solve it.

Now, for those who feel woefully inadequate to teach even basic arithmetic to their own kids, then a different line of thought may be required, a simpler one: "how come it's so hard now for kids to know math? Aren't kids smarter and more sophisticated than ever before? Aren't there education majors and certified teachers? How come the one-room schoolhouse teachers or 85 yr old nuns from 50 years ago were producing kids who knew just as much useful math as we do now?" and maybe in that way, we can at least start the "something is Dreadfully wrong here" and have parents feel confident that they know that is true.

-- KtmGuest - 02 Aug 2005

• Particularly in the elementary grades, it's essential to have high-quality textbooks, because elementary school teachers do not have math backgrounds, and must teach every subject, not just math. Elementary teachers need a high-quality textbook to support and guide their teaching.
  
  other aspects of this argument:
  
  This is why SAXON MATH and SINGAPORE MATH are so popular among homeschoolers. The parent-instructor can study and learn from the text, too.
  
  Chinese math teachers spend many hours studying the children's textbook.

• focus on the weak content of the programs, not on the weak teaching methodology

• be specific: be able to give specific examples of below-grade-level problems. We have a good collection of 'Compare and Contrast' problems at CompareAndContrastPosts.

• use any set of problems from Singapore Math books Emphasize that these are multi-step problems from the get-go that require students to have put together various math skills and concepts. We have numerous Singapore Math problems posted, which you can find in the Singapore Math and Compare and Contrast topic threads. (I will, when time allows, pull those links to this page.)

• do use the words 'constructivist' and 'constructivism' (Arguing content, not pedagogy, is more persuasive, but the words 'constructivism' and 'constructivist' seem to have a negative impact on parents, and are rarely used by constructivists themselves probably for this reason.)

• do use the words 'whole math' and 'whole language'

• use the words 'experimental curriculum' and/or 'experimental curriculum that has been formally rejected by the state of California'

• know who your real audience is If your district has adopted a constructivist curriculum, administrators and, presumably, board members have made up their minds for now. When you speak at school meetings or board meetings gear your arguments toward your fellow audience members, not toward the person you are addressing.
  

• focus on the 'near' future, not the 'far' future Instead of arguing that a 7-year old enrolled in a slow-moving constructivist curriculum will be shut out of college math or math-related careers, point out that a slow-math curriculum will affect the level of math he is able to study in 6th grade. If he's still learning division in 5th grade, will he be able to do fractions in 6th? Catherine here: I need better examples

• While neither the Kipp nor the Singapore argument has been effective for me the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd time I've brought it up, I have had parents later raise KIPP & Singapore themselves. Both comparisons take a while to sink in. No one's heard of KIPP, and white Americans usually believe that Asians are genetically superior at math (in my experience).

• be specific: be able to give specific examples of below-grade-level problems. We have a good collection of 'Compare and Contrast' problems at CompareAndContrastPosts.

initial summary of what's been said (please edit):

• be specific: be able to give specific examples of below-grade-level problems. We now have a good collection of 'Compare and Contrast' problems at CompareAndContrastPosts.

Catherine here: I agree with Barry--and I think my cousin's interview could be a good item to email to parents, teachers, administators, school boards, & other interested parties. It's the only first-person account I've read that goes into as much detail about the problems with constant 'preludes to learning.' FirstPerson. And its super easy to read & understand (at least, I hope it is).

tactics

• spaced repetition While neither the Kipp nor the Singapore argument has been effective for me the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd time I've brought it up, I have had parents later raise KIPP & Singapore themselves. Both comparisons take a while to sink in. Both are too foreign. No one's heard of KIPP, and white Americans usually believe that Asians are genetically superior at math (in my experience).

• from Ed, an answer to the question of how do you neutralize the claim by school administrators that it doesn't matter if they're using a constructivist book, because the teacher is the curriculum? (I've found that parents easily believe this idea, and hold it themselves.) Ed's answer is that particularly in the elementary grades it's essentialy to have high-quality textbooks because teachers do not have math backgrounds.

• from a Math Forum subscriber, addressing the same question: if the teacher is the curriculum you lack articulation between grades, schools, and even classes.

• Prof_Wilfred_Schmid_2001.ppt: This is Wilfried Shmidt's PowerPoint^? that I was talking about in green body paint above.

Barry here, wearing green body paint: The difficulty of finding an instantly recognizable stupid problem,particularly in the lower grades, is the problem I pointed out with EM earlier. The problems, taken by themselves, are not bad. It's the context, and how much time is wasted doing them. Example: Making kids justify/explain why 3 + 2 = 5, or 4 x 3 = 12. The concept ain't that hard, folks, so why make kids go back to first principles every time they do a math fact? We know you don't like drill and kill, so is making them write essays about the math facts any better? Just memorize the darn things like they do in Singapore and all over the world and be done with it. And give the kids timed tests to make sure they know it. Wilfried Schmid did a good Powerpoint about Investigations in which he included the types of "problems" kids had so solve. Again, taken by themselves, the problems weren't bad, but they were definitely well below grade level. So a compare and contrast would probably be most effective: E.g., in the U.S. in the 3rd grade, students do X, Y,Z, and in Singapore...etc. Wilfried includes one example, however, that I can't resist talking about. It's for 3rd grade. I don't know what the lesson is about, if anything, but it suggests having students take turns singing happy birthday to a doll (you know, birthdays, age, numbers. WHA HUH?) Well, aside from its stupidity, around 3rd grade, kids don't like to play with dolls in front of a whole classroom. I'll find the link. You have to read it to believe it.

Carolyn here -- This isn't actually a good problem for a quick conversation with another parent. You'll have to explain why it's a stupid problem (as you did in the above paragraph), and they'll have to take time to get it, and by then your argument is diluted. The problem has to be instantly recognizable as stupid to have punch.

Barry here: NYC HOLD has Bas Braams' critiques of Everyday Math. Worth reading; he's an expert on the program and has been fighting NYC District 2 along with Elizabeth Carson, for years. The problem in trying to criticize EM is that the problems themselves are fairly good (Mathematically Correct gave it a C or a C-, so it's got some plusses to it). What's bad can't be seen from looking at one good problem. What you don't see is that it's taught in the infamous "spiral" so the program jumps around like a flea on a doormat. Students spend little time mastering one aspect of math before they flit around to the next topic and there's no bullding upon what they've learned. The chief problem with EM is their lack of teaching the standard algorithms. Many parents do not understand the importance of why students should learn these and it's hard to communicate this effectively.

OK, what's wrong with that problem? It's ill-posed. What does bigger mean? Bigger in area, bigger in volume, bigger in terms of number of seats in the room? There will be a variety of answers because of the vague nature of the problem. Teachers love the variety of answers because they feel this proves that "there is more than one right answer to a math problem". One purpose of math is to develop precision in thought. These type of problems do not.

Miss a day or two and you get left far behind at KTM.

A year or so ago our school had a professionally facilitated session (3 days) involving teachers and parents that would create a 5 year strategic plan for our schools. I applied and was accepted to participate. In reviewing the agenda for the meetings, I realized that many topics and philosophical assumptions (in spite of it being a strategic plan) would be off-the-table and it also looked like a Delphi setup. I realized that it would be a useless exercise on my part and wrote them a letter saying that I would not participate. I told them that their meeting would not or could not address many of my concerns. I found out later that because it was a strategic meeting, few details were discussed, but then again, many basic assumptions were not reevaluated either - a feel good waste of time; school PR, if you will.

General vague responses I have received to critical comments:

1. Yes, we know it is a problem. (But we can't do much about it.) 2. We are working on it. (Don't call us, We'll call you.) 3. Some teachers are going to training sessions over the summer. (We have it under control, thank you very much.) 4. Private schools can do more because the students are "pre-selected". (Meaning that you can't expect us to do more.) 5. We are constrained by union seniority rules. (I have never seen such nice parents get so very angry as when a Reduction-In-Force (RIF) caused a chain reaction, seniority-based, bumping of teachers. This year, many parents signed a petition to remove a known problem teacher. It couldn't be done, so they are dividing up his classes to minimize his damage and to placate the parents.)

-- SteveH - 10 Jul 2005

The truth is, I'm not an Open Center person, either. I don't like The Open Center, to be honest, and The Open Center doesn't like me. I ended up leaving the Betty Edwards class I took their two days early, things got so tense.

I just don't like watching a bully.

Especially a passive aggressive bully.

The guy wasn't too quick on the uptake.

A true Delphic leader would have realized I was trouble and done whatever he needed to do to marginalize me, too.

Things progressed to the point where this shmoo actually turned to the class and said, 'Does anyone else in this room think I've been disrespectful to The Open Center?'

So there was a fair amount of pressure on the guy.

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic."

I had a funny experience along these lines just a couple of weeks ago.

I went with my neighbor to a demonstration photography class at The Open Center in New York.

The Open Center is a 'holistic learning center,' and the demonstration photography teacher was making a lot of quips about 'what am I doing at The Open Center??' and 'Oops! I guess I can't say that at The Open Center' and so on.

Two people in the group (of maybe 30 people?) took offense.

The Open Center is a bit of a religious-type place I would say; it has a kind of New Age, warm feel to it.

The two people who were offended started challenging the demo-teacher, saying things like, 'You've never been here, how can you say that, how can you be so critical?' etc.

The demo-teacher flatly denied that he had said anything remotely hostile, which, of course, cranked up the two objectors even more.

Meanwhile, no one else there was an Open Center person; they were all just New Yorkers who were interested in taking a photography class.

So the demo-teacher triangulated the group against the two.

He started making really offensive comments to the group, like, 'Sometimes an artistic comment can cause people to make vile attacking statements'...

I have no idea what his actual words were; I've forgotten. The point is that he began to call these two people names indirectly, in comments made to the rest of the group.

So I jumped in, too, on their side.

The truth is, I'm not an Open Center person; I'm the kind of person who practically gets kicked out of the place, and I'm not kidding. I ended up leaving the Betty Edwards class I took their two days early.

Oil and water.

So I was in a great position vis a vis the old divide-and-conquer business, because I don't particularly care for The Open Center myself.

So each time the demo-teacher made an appeal to the crowd to triangulate against the other two, I would pop up with the observation that yes indeed he was being sarcastic and disrespectful to The Open Center, but that I didn't mind.

I said this cheerfully, not sarcastically.

The guy wasn't too quick on the uptake; a true Delphic leader would have realized I was trouble (he'd be right) and done whatever he needed to do to marginalize me, too.

But he didn't.

So things progressed to the point where this shmoo actually turns to the class and says, 'Does anyone else in this room think I've been disrespectful to The Open Center.'

Talk about giving someone an opening.

I shot up my hand.

I wasn't a straight-A teacher's pet for 13 years of my life for nothing.

WHAM HAND IN THE AIR, MOUTH WORKING!

'Yes!' I said, in my most authoritative Good Student voice.

'Yes! You've been disrespectful to The Open Center.'

It was fun.

-- CatherineJohnson - 10 Jul 2005

Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator "the victim." This defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda.

Could someone implant this one deep inside my brain stem?

Or...uh...just graft it onto my frontal lobes.

Every square inch of my frontal lobes.

-- CatherineJohnson - 09 Jul 2005