That's not what the National Research Council says:

Executive Summary

Under the auspices of the National Research Council, this committee’s charge was to evaluate the quality of the evaluations of the 13 mathematics curriculum materials supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (an estimated $93 million) and 6 of the commercially generated mathematics curriculum materials (listing in Chapter 2).

The committee was charged to determine whether the currently available data are sufficient for evaluating the effectiveness of these materials and, if these data are not sufficiently robust, the committee was asked to develop recommendations about the design of a subsequent project that could result in the generation of more reliable and valid data for evaluating these materials.

[snip]

The Quality of the Evaluations

These 19 curricular projects essentially have been experiments. We owe them a careful reading on their effectiveness. Demands for evaluation may be cast as a sign of failure, but we would rather stress that this examination is a sign of the success of these programs to engage a country in a scholarly debate on the question of curricular effectiveness and the essential underlying question, What is most important for our youth to learn in their studies in mathematics? To summarily blame national decline on a set of curricula whose use has a limited market share lacks credibility. At the same time, to find out if a major investment in an approach is successful and worthwhile is a prime example of responsible policy. In experimentation, success and worthiness are two different measures of experimental value. An experiment can fail and yet be worthy. The experiments that probably should not be run are those in which it is either impossible to determine if the experiment has failed or it is ensured at the start, by design, that the experiment will succeed. The contribution of the committee is intended to help us ascertain these distinctive outcomes.

[snip]

The charge to the committee was “to assess the quality of studies about the effectiveness of 13 sets of mathematics curriculum materials developed through NSF support and six sets of commercially generated curriculum materials.”

[snip]

In response to our charge, the committee finds that:

The corpus of evaluation studies as a whole across the 19 programs studied does not permit one to determine the effectiveness of individual programs with high degree of certainty, due to the restricted number of studies for any particular curriculum, limitations in the array of methods used, and the uneven quality of the studies.

source: On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations (2004)
National Academies Press
Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB)
Center for Education (CFE)
available online or purchase, pages 3 & 188

And I seem to recall something in NCLB about....evidence-based instruction?

Evidence-based instruction and receipt of federal dollars?

Yes?

I'm pretty sure.



nationalresearchcouncil

Back to main page.

---

---

Comments

After entering a comment, users can login anonymously as KtmGuest (password: guest) when prompted.
Please consider registering as a regular user.
Look here for syntax help.

---

I wonder what type of Math program Ms. Yoak experienced while a student in the Stow-Monroe School District? It is sobering to realize that most graduates of schools of education have probably only experienced Whole Language style reading instruction. Soon most graduates will have probably only experienced constructivist math instruction.

-- LoneRanger - 10 Jul 2005

---

What's Princeton Review doing providing professional development for fuzzy math programs? To ensure that kids enroll in their SAT prep classes?

-- BarryGarelick - 10 Jul 2005

---

Well, folks, it's official here in Michigan. We are not reaping the rewards of fuzzy math.

The high school MEAP scores are out. While the science scores are bad, the math scores are clearly showing what we are doing to our children. Here are the facts:

The number of students who are at the bottom level in math has increased from 19% to 29% in 5 years.

The number of students who are the top level in math has decreased from 22% to 9%!!!!!

But don't worry folks. David Plank, the co-director of the Education Policy Center at MSU said "he isn't sre there is a steady enough change overall in the ....math data to call it a strong trend."

Obviously, this guy has only had fuzzy math instruction. Not only it is a trend, it is a fact. A very sad fact. Only 9% of our high school students are ready to take on college math. Only 9% will be able to go into technical fields if they want to.

Waht other evidence do they need?

-- AnneDwyer - 10 Jul 2005

---

I also am a member of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics, and I strongly support the vision of both of these organizations.

At least Mrs. Kim Yoak doesn't hide what she's about.

-- CarolynJohnston - 10 Jul 2005

---

The number of students who are at the bottom level in math has increased from 19% to 29% in 5 years.

The number of students who are the top level in math has decreased from 22% to 9%!!!!!

Can we get the report?

We need to spend some serious time posting about this.

We probably also need a Core-Plus in MI page.

-- CatherineJohnson - 10 Jul 2005

---

What is the MEAP test like?

Is it decent?

You seem to have the same 4-tiered scoring we do, yes?

-- CatherineJohnson - 10 Jul 2005

---

The MEAP is one of those tests where no one lets you see the test and they spend time tinkering with it so that you can't compare one year to another. But it is a four tiered system. I forget the actually terminology, but it is something like: exceeds standards, meets standard, below standard and .....not sure here but abysmal comes to mind.

Anyway, in Michigan, everyone in high school takes it because if you get a certain score, you automatically earn a scholarship.

The info I quoted today comes from a front page story in the Detroit Free Press. There is a graph of the data I gave.

I would bet that the math ACT and math SAT scores reflect the same trend and would show similar percentages. Is there a way to get that data broken down by state? And broken down by percentage of students over a certain score? I know that the testing services give this data to each individual student, but I don't know if the aggregate is available. If my hunch is correct, then anyone could corroborate these findings with stadardized test data that is comparable from year to year.

As a matter of fact, I would be really interested to know how the math ACT (because it emphasizes content) has changed from 1965 to 2005. That would be really interesting.

-- AnneDwyer - 10 Jul 2005

---

exceeds standards, meets standard, below standard and .....not sure here but abysmal comes to mind

LOL

I've forgotten our terminology offhand, except that Christopher, with his skin-of-the-teeth 4 on the TONYSS, was considered 'advanced.'

This is a 10 year old who can't measure stuff.

-- CatherineJohnson - 11 Jul 2005

---

Actually, he's measuring a whole lot better now.

I was thrilled this week when all of a sudden he could measure the diameter of a nickel when the nickel was placed at the 1 mark on the ruler instead of on the 0.

Just one week earlier he couldn't do that.

I think that's the kind of flexibility and....'logical seeing'.... that happens when you develop mastery.

I wish to heck we had words for these little micro-moments of learning.

-- CatherineJohnson - 11 Jul 2005

---

On the regular state-mandated tests the language is less emotive.

I think 3s are 'meets standards' and 4s are 'exceeds standards,' something like that.

This is making me curious....

-- CatherineJohnson - 11 Jul 2005

---

David Plank, the co-director of the Education Policy Center at MSU said, "he isn't sure there is a steady enough change overall in the ...math data to call it a strong trend."

A drop in the number of top level math students has declined from 22% to 9%!! In anybody's book this would be a strong drop!!

Is Mr. Plank saying that the decline hasn't been documented over a long enough period of time to be considered a steady change overall and therefore can't be considered a strong trend?

The dear parent who wrote in IllinoisLoop^?'s story "My Conversion" said, in speaking of the educationist, ". . . they are more interested in preserving the premises upon which they've staked their professional attainments than in ascertaining and meeting the learning needs of children."

David Plank and his convoluted explanation of the obvious severe drop in scores is a perfect example of the progressivist-edcuationist's stubborn committment to an approach which has failed and continues to fail our students.

Why would we want to wait for a LONGER period of time for this decline to continue before we acknowledge the obvious? If something is failing, intervention must be implemented quickly.

Mr. Plank, I hear you saying, "My fingers are in my ears, the blindfold is over my eyes, and now I'm going to stick my head in the sand."

And they always want US to be more open minded!!??

-- InterestedTeacher - 13 Jul 2005

---

David Plank, the co-director of the Education Policy Center at MSU said, "he isn't sure there is a steady enough change overall in the ...math data to call it a strong trend."

A drop in the number of top level math students has declined from 22% to 9%!! In anybody's book this would be a strong drop!!

The FINANCIAL TIMES had an article on b******* yesterday that was pretty interesting.

It was about all the bs in corporate-speak.

But reading it I thought: forget big business.

Spend 5 seconds reading the stuff that comes out of the NCTM.

-- CatherineJohnson - 13 Jul 2005

---

Apparently one of the strategies in NYC is to no longer report 3s as distinct from 4s ('advanced' or 'exceeds standards,' depending on the test).

So a decline in 4s (which I believe but don't know has happened) is masked.

-- CatherineJohnson - 13 Jul 2005

---

22% to 9% is a drop. If the number of my 5th grade students scoring at the top dropped from 22% to 9% I would be horrified. I'd start immediately to do some things differently.

-- CarolynMorgan - 13 Jul 2005

---

I learned this year to calculate percentage increase & decrease (well, I learned it once)....Though actually, this was one of those nice moments where I felt I was gaining some ability to generalize my knowledge.

A friend told me just to subtract the new percentage from the old, and I didn't think that was right.

[pause]

sigh.

I've just slammed into yet another Great Wall of Inflexible Knowledge.

The obvious solution is to start a new page and write out every step of my confusion, in the interests of gaining pedagogical content knowledge (in this case, pedagogical content knowledge of what math students don't know when they don't know percents...

I will call my new page:

InflexibleKnowledgeNarrative, in honor of Liping Ma.

-- CatherineJohnson - 13 Jul 2005

---

Catherine,

This isn't really a percent decrease problem. All they did was calculate the beginning percentage (#of students who exceed/total number of students) in 2000. They did the same calculation in 2005. Essentially, they are just reporting the number of students who exceeded standards in 2000 and 2005 in the more convenient percentage notation.

-- AnneDwyer - 14 Jul 2005

---

nationalresearchcouncil

-- CatherineJohnson - 25 Jun 2006

---

Now, it's time in Michigan to change the scoring system and lower the percentage needed to attain "meets" or "exceeds" standards, just like they recently did in Illinois.

-- KathyIggy - 25 Jun 2006

---

What happened with the scoring system in IL???

-- CatherineJohnson - 03 Jul 2006

---

In Illinois (as I recall), "not enough" kids met or exceeded standards in I think the 8th grade Math ISAT. So they lowered the passing score to less than 50%. The article was in the Chicago Sun-Times awhile back.

-- KathyIggy - 05 Jul 2006

---

In Illinois (as I recall), "not enough" kids met or exceeded standards in I think the 8th grade Math ISAT. So they lowered the passing score to less than 50%. The article was in the Chicago Sun-Times awhile back.

right

this is what parents have to be vigilant about, because you simply cannot flunk huge numbers of kids

It's impossible to do politically.

Fordham says there are two ways to deal with exit exams:

• water down the exam

• water down the scores - but plan to raise them as schools improve and raising the scores becomes possible

Fordham prefers the second, and I think he's right.

You just have to know what the situation is.

-- CatherineJohnson - 17 Nov 2006

WebLogForm
Title:	class action suit coming right up
TopicType:	WebLog
SubjectArea:	MathWars, TercInvestigations
LogDate:	200507092156