30 Aug 2005 - 04:28

objecting to Connected Mathematics

Ben came home today with a Connected Math 'assignment' that said only the following:

"List all first moves that allow your opponent to score only 1 point: 1 to 99."

There was no explanation of the underlying game, and Ben couldn't clearly explain what the game was about, although he seemed to feel that he understood it.

The assignment, it turns out, is from the first pamphlet in the Connected Math 6th grade series. Here's what Dr. Betty Tsang (doctorate in high-energy physics, by the way) has to say about that pamphlet:

1. Prime Time: Factors and Multiples

Mainly a game book but unfortunately, a boring game book with factors. The material is very boring for a regular 6th grader who learn most of these materials in 5th grade. For a curriculum that stresses on real world problems, most of the problems are not real life problems. For example, there are exercises to discover abundant, deficit and perfect number which are interesting numbers but have no application in life -- most scientists and mathematicians have not heard about them. This is also the unit where students are asked to make posters about numbers (including my favorite number). Points are given for creativity such as writing a poem. The last chapter on the locker problem is interesting. However, if the student is smart, he/she will realize that without working hard there is a 50% to be correct just by guessing.

(Click here to get reviews of the rest of the pamphlets).

Apparently, in Connected Math, each pamphlet is supposed to take 4 weeks to cover: that's 4 weeks of some factor game, the nature of which is apparently to be kept a secret from parents.

I don't know exactly what I'm going to do yet, but I'm going to do something. There is no way that, after all I did last year to try to get Ben into a decent math program, I'm going to stop trying now.

A buddy of mine came across this parent letter about Connected Math tonight when he went hunting for information about it. It's a valuable document, because it includes line-by-line rebuttals by a presumably knowledgeable Director of the progressive math project.

If you want to take your objections about a fuzzy math curriculum to your school, these are the arguments you have to be able to address. Don't be knocked out of the running by some show-stopper about research supporting a constructivist math curriculum.

For example, here's a parent concern about Connected Math:

The reading level and lack of examples is very difficult for some of the children. The children are not given the concrete foundation that many of them need to be successful with math.

and here is the expert's rebuttal:

The lack of "worked examples" is part of the CMP instructional philosophy that aims to get students more responsible for their own learning and thinking. It is not wrong unless results of student achievement studies were to show that students taught from this approach learn less than students taught from a traditional demonstration and practice approach. There will undoubtedly be some school situations where test scores decline after CMP adoption (though even in those reported situations one has to be careful to check that no plausible alternate explanations for decline are present). However, the experiences in many school district across the country do not in any way support the claim that a decline in test scores is the normal or even common consequence of CMP adoption).

Note how the author of the rebuttal places the burden of proof of inadequacy on the questioners. Connected Math is to be allowed to fail our kids unless someone can prove that all the environmental conditions under which it was used were perfect. CMP is innocent until proven guilty.

Here is another parent objection:

In summary, North Penn has decided to replace the 8th grade Pre-Algebra program with a program called Connected Math. Traditional Pre-Algebra will not be an option for our 8th grade students.

and another rebuttal:

This decision is well-supported by research, expert panel reviews and international studies. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study amply documented that American eight grade mathematics students were not competitive internationally -- even the better students werea not as competitive when matched with other industrialized countries's better students, See: http://www.rbs.org/mathsci/timss/index.shtml. This gap in performance has been a long standing concern. See "A Nation at Risk" report in 1983 http://www.gphillymath.org/NationalResearchStudies/NationRisk.pdf.

The National Council of Teacher of Mathematics (NCTM) first published their Curriculum and Evaluation Standards in 1989 in response to these international studies. The standards call for more algebra, geometry, statistics and probability in the middle grades focused on students performing complex problem solving and developing mathematical reasoning. These NCTM standards were updated in 2000. See http://standards.nctm.org.

In January 1999, Pennsylvania State Board of Education adopted state mathematic standards similar to those of NCTM. See http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/cwp/view.asp?a=85&Q=74000#CHAP4.

An expert panel review commissioned by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) performed and exhaustive review of middle school mathematics text books. Only four were rated highly. Connected Mathematics was the top rated. See. http://www.project2061.org/tools/textbook/matheval/default.htm.

Note that this statement implies that the results of the TIMSS study support Connected Math, but they offer no evidence that this is so. In addition, although they state that CMP is supported by research, they offer no citation; only a report of a panel review. The What Works Clearinghouse does not report any research done on CMP that fully meets its evidence standards.

In fact, one might reasonably ask why we don't adopt the curriculum that was used by the country that was top-performing on the TIMSS, which was Singapore. We could do it: the curriculum is marketed in the U.S. as Singapore Math.

Talk about a research-based, proven winner.

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.

---

"In fact, one might reasonably ask why we don't adopt the curriculum that was used by the country that was top-performing on the TIMSS, which was Singapore. We could do it: the curriculum is marketed in the U.S. as Singapore Math."

Ouch! That hurts.

"This decision is well-supported by research, expert panel reviews and international studies. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study amply documented that American eight grade mathematics students were not competitive internationally -- even the better students werea not as competitive when matched with other industrialized countries's better students, See: http://www.rbs.org/mathsci/timss/index.shtml. This gap in performance has been a long standing concern. See "A Nation at Risk" report in 1983 http://www.gphillymath.org/NationalResearchStudies/NationRisk.pdf."

I love the nonchalanche with which constructivists label non sequiturs "research". Students do lousy in math, therefore (more) fuzzy math is the only answer.

-- CharlesH - 30 Aug 2005