On the other hand, there are still many parents who like EM. They see their kids getting high scores on state standardized tests

That must be due to their fantastic stem and leaf mastery.

Hey!

Don't knock it!

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

thanks for the compliment!

I like the letter, because it's a pretty good example of "writing short." VERY difficult to capture a fairly complex argument in 100 words - and I think I've pulled it out.

More and more, I'm sold on the UK writing instruction paradigm:

Koren describes how two British women she knows became effective essayists and speakers. “Each week, they’d had homework exercises like this: While preserving every essential point, reduce a 100-word essay to 50 words, then to 20, then to 10. Reduce 500 words to 50, 1,000 words to 100. Week after week, year after year.

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

And check out this great line from Woodrow Wilson:

If I am to speak for ten minutes, I need a week for preparation. If fifteen minutes, three days; if half an hour, two days; if an hour, I am ready now.
Woodrow Wilson

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

I copied the letter to our principal.

heh

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

I doubt they'll run it.

They'll have a page of letters about the social injustice of affluent white kids getting good educations while poor black and Hispanic kids go to lousy schools with no money.

Betcha 10 bucks.

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

The Many Ways of Arithmetic in Everyday Math

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

These people really take the cake.

What about pacing? Should I move on to the next lesson even if students have not mastered the skills in the current lesson?

Research has shown that children learn best when new topics are presented at a brisk pace, with multiple exposures over time, and with frequent opportunities for review and practice. The sequence of instruction in the Everyday Mathematics curriculum has been carefully mapped out to optimize these conditions for learning and retaining knowledge. Every new concept or skill is introduced informally, and then is revisited in a variety of contexts over several grade levels. Each subsequent exposure builds upon previous experience, helping children develop proficiency over time. Although it may be necessary to make some pacing adjustments based on your students' abilities, it is recommended that you try to adhere as closely as possible to the pacing guides outlined on each grade level's Scope & Sequence chart.

Maybe we should make it illegal to say "research has shown" without providing the citation.

Of course, that would take a HUGE big bite out of freedom of speech where fuzzy math is concerned.

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

This is pretty cool, though (pdf file).

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

actually, I should forward a copy of my letter to KIPP

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

4th graders giving Everyday Math the business

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

I'm feeling a tad ambivalent about the gallery of 4th grade decimal letters....

Shouldn't the teacher have been able to point out that EVERYDAY MATH was using "4.10" to mean "4th chapter, 10th lesson"?

Wouldn't kids in olden times have figured this out on their own?

Is this an instance of obsessive rule-mongering?

Youth wants to know.

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

or....are the folks at Everyday Math not getting the joke?

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Nov 2006

I doubt they'll run it.

You beat me to my punchline.

And they can always blame the limits of their "news hole."

-- BenCalvin - 30 Nov 2006

They don't need to blame anything!

They'll just run tons of letters about how terrible it is that rich white kids get such fantastic educations in the suburbs.

Talk about missing the story.

-- CatherineJohnson - 30 Nov 2006

For the partial sum addition examples, notice what happens if you add 128 + 379.

You have to CARRY when you do the summation in the lower part. If you are adding more than two numbers, this would happen almost all of the time. Do the kids have to do recursive partial sums until there are no more carries?

-- SteveH - 30 Nov 2006

I don't know the answer to your question, Steve. Although my daughter is in fourth grade, she does not know how to do partial sums addition. Her second grade teacher --- who was very "old school" --- taught her to carry and that's how she been doing it ever since. She has so much trouble with math that the teachers just let her avoid partial sums and use the traditional algorithm instead.

I have no idea how the other kids handle this. A lot of kids know how to carry numbers, although it's not clear whether they were taught at home or in school.

As I'm sure you know, many math professors do not think all algorithms are equal. They think traditional methods are more efficient, especially for very large or so-called "nasty" numbers.

Everyday Math teaches several types of algorithms and expects kids to choose the one they prefer. I think most kids choose the Everyday Math "focus" algorithm (i.e., partial sums, partial quotients, etc). That's what they've had the most practice with.

The sixth graders in our neighborhood use the lattice method as their primary method of multiplying. I understand how the lattice works, but I don't see the advantage over the traditional method.

-- RobynW - 30 Nov 2006

Catherine,

"Write short" -- good advice. Unfortunately, I often do the opposite.

I'm going to keep your advice in mind when I write my letter to our director of curriculum complaining about EM.

-- RobynW - 30 Nov 2006

"Everyday Math teaches several types of algorithms and expects kids to choose the one they prefer."

In my son's 5th grade class, they are tested on all methods. The fallacy is that the kids somehow "understand" more. This is false. On top of it all, they practice less and are not very good at ANY method.

My comment about partial sums is that they do it to avoid carrying, but it is still required in the lower part. Traditional methods are more efficient and work for all cases, but they require a better grasp of the basics of adding and subtracting to 20 and the times table. The alternative algorithms are more "forgiving", which means they are easier for kids who don't have a solid grasp of the basics. This is supposed to be OK because understanding is most important, not mastery of the skill.

When you write your letter complaining about EM, remember that the problem is practice and mastery of ANY kind of method. This is especially important when you get to fractions. There is also the question of preparation for a solid course in algebra in 8th grade. If they have a good algebra course at the school, they should ask all of the kids how much help they got at home or with tutors.

-- SteveH - 30 Nov 2006

"the problem is practice and mastery of ANY kind of method"

What if kids were drilled to mastery on partial sums addition, lattice multiplication and forgiving division? Does it matter which method they learn as long as they learn one to mastery?

I've read articles by math professors stating that traditional methods are best and ought to be taught (which I think is what you're saying), so I'm teaching my kids those methods.

I was going to complain about the focus algorithms in my letter, but I don't have enough of a math background to really evaluate this issue. For example, I don't know whether kids are harmed by mastering lattice multiplication rather than the traditional method.

In our school, I'm guessing that most kids do master one method by middle school. The kids I know seem to have mastered the lattice for multiplication and partial sums for addition.

-- RobynW - 30 Nov 2006

"What if kids were drilled to mastery on partial sums addition, lattice multiplication and forgiving division? Does it matter which method they learn as long as they learn one to mastery?"

Mastery is better than no mastery. The traditional algorithms are better than the "forgiving" ones, or the lattice method. The traditional methods require better mastery of the basics and more thinking in your head.

"I've read articles by math professors stating that traditional methods are best and ought to be taught (which I think is what you're saying), so I'm teaching my kids those methods."

That's what I did with my son. He just needs more practice. He is still surprised when my wife and I (even my 80 year old mother) show him that we can answer any times table flash card instantly - as soon as we see it. He can see us easily do things like 7 times 23 in our head, probably because of all of our traditional long division work we did when we were kids.

"I was going to complain about the focus algorithms in my letter, but I don't have enough of a math background to really evaluate this issue."

If you do that, then they might just say that it is their policy to allow the kids to decide on their own focus algorithm, traditional or otherwise. The problem is not so much the focus algorithms, but the mastery requirements. This is a difficult topic because mastery is hard to define. How many long division problems are required for mastery? What kind of tests and scores do you use? They can (and do) dismiss these arguments by saying that they do mastery. They might even talk about supplementation (of an undefined amount and only for the basics). So, your arguments are covered and then they will start talking about "understanding" and perhaps "balance". You lose.

The problem is that this discussion always focuses on the basic arithmetic algorithms. They can cover these arguments. They might even admit to a need to work more on practice and that they are working on it. It's hard to argue against generalities.

So what, exactly, is the problem? The real problems don't start showing up until 4th and 5th grades, once you get past the basics of add, subtract, multiply, and divide. EM covers a lot of topics, but doesn't spend enough time practicing key topics like fractions, decimals, percents, and word problems. They are not leading kids to a proper course in algebra in 8th grade. How can you show this when EM covers most all of the required topics? You can't say that the material is not there.

The problem is more insidious, but is more easily seen if you open up two workbooks side-by-side. It's best to do this with a 5th or 6th grade book because the problems have had a chance to multiply and you can talk about skills beyond the basics of arithmetic.

The first thing you will see is the different levels of difficulty. The EM student will not be able to do the problems in the other workbook. The second thing you will see are the large difference in the number of problems that the student has to do. Both books might cover approximately the same material, but produce much different results. It's hard to argue that the EM student who can't do the more difficult problems has more "understanding".

If you can't argue against their generalities and you can't do a detailed study, then you have to state your opinion; your position, something like this:

The goal of lower grade math curricula is to prepare kids for a proper course in algebra in 8th grade. They can talk all the want about constructivism, understanding, and multiple methods, but if they can't get the kids to master the skills and lead them to a quality algebra course in 8th grade, then they have failed. Many people around the country have complained that EM cannot do the job, and most schools are supplementing EM with mastery practice.

But why would a school supplement a curriculum that does not emphasize mastery when there are world class curricula that do a better job and have proven track records? EM is fundamentally flawed. You cannot properly supplement rapid spiraling with mastery. The two techniques are incompatible. EM is anti-mastery.

Focus on the goal, not the focus algorithms. They KNOW there are lots of people (mathematicians, engineers, scientists) who don't like EM. They can't tell you that this isn't true. They KNOW that lots of schools are supplementing. They can't tell you this isn't true. You need to tell them that keeping the same curriculum and supplementing it is not enough.

Of course, if they are like our public schools (EM + CMP), they simply do a self-study that "proves" that everything is OK. "Our kids hold their own." Case closed. Go away. But it can't hurt to register your position with a strong public statement that leaves little room for argument. The goal is not to fix EM. The goal is to replace it.

-- SteveH - 30 Nov 2006

Thanks for the advice Steve. I will certainly stress the lack of mastery and practice and will avoid getting sidetracked on a debate about algorithms.

I'm pretty sure the school district will respond in exactly the manner you suggest. They'll say we do have practice, the kids are required to master the material, etcetera.

Our district claims that EM prepares the kids very well for algebra. The kids I know are not taking algebra yet. They're too young. But I can see how EM is failing the kids in the early grades and I doubt grades 5 and 6 are going to be any better.

They introduced EM in our district about six or seven years ago. I don't know how kids are doing in algebra.

-- RobynW - 01 Dec 2006

"Our district claims that EM prepares the kids very well for algebra. The kids I know are not taking algebra yet. They're too young. But I can see how EM is failing the kids in the early grades and I doubt grades 5 and 6 are going to be any better."

The problem is that lots of things are called algebra. Does your 7th and 8th grades offer different levels of math? A school in a town next to us (using EM) offers 3 levels of math in 8th grade: pre-algebra(?), algebra, and advanced algebra, but this doesn't tell you whether the courses are any good. You have to look at the textbooks and the students going on to the honors or AP math track in high school. If your school offers an option of a good algebra course in 8th grade, that's great, but it still might be up to the parents to make sure that their kids are prepared to get there.

Even then, it's clouded by a number of issues. How much outside help did these kids get? How many kids historically have gone into these tracks? Don't overlook the possibility that since EM was introduced, MORE kids are going into the top math track in high school. In our town, they had used the awful MathLand for years. I mentioned how bad it was to a parent whose kids are older and she said that it COULDN'T be worse than what they had. She described a little bit of what her kids had. Unfortunately, I couldn't disagree.

It's impossible to show that EM is not good enough, whatever that means. It's easier to demand a world class, proven curriculum, like Singapore Math. They know many complain about EM. They know that many schools supplement. They are then put in the position of explaining why Singapore Math (or Saxon, or...) is not better. It's easier to counter their arguments. They should do the explaining, not you.

"Why are you using Everyday Math, a curriculum defective enough that many mathematicians, engineers, and scientists complain about it and many schools feel the need to supplement it, rather than a world class, proven curriculum like Singapore Math, used by the best students in the world?"

-- SteveH - 01 Dec 2006

Asking for Singapore Math and making them explain why they don't use it is a good idea. I like the idea of putting them on the defensive. They'll probably say something like Singapore Math doesn't meet all of our state standards.

I don't know what math curriculum they used before EM was introduced. It's quite possible it was worse. I know Prof. Milgram of Stanford says that EM is the least bad of the constructivist math curricula.

I could not possibly evaluate our district's algebra books and curriculum. I just know that they call the course "algebra." I struggled through algebra in ninth grade and am not looking forward to reteaching myself the subject with Saxon.

Thanks again for the insights. I doubt that they will actually change the curriculum, but I still want to let them know of my opposition to EM. Banging my head against the wall might be a better use of my time, but I'm going to write the letter anyway.

-- RobynW - 01 Dec 2006

My daughter is in 4th grade now. Her school uses EM, but her teacher supplements heavily. When I asked her what she was doing in math, she said, "We're not even using the book. She is making us do your kind of math, Mom." Thank God for good teachers.

I've said this before but... one of the problems with EM is it makes the kids overconfident. They think they're doing 'algebra'. But when you actually show them an algebra problem, they can't do it.

At least EM has something that looks like math in it. That CMP program has absolutely no math in it. It has lots of numbers and data, but no actual math.

-- AnneDwyer - 01 Dec 2006

"Why are you using Everyday Math, a curriculum defective enough that many mathematicians, engineers, and scientists complain about it and many schools feel the need to supplement it, rather than a world class, proven curriculum like Singapore Math, used by the best students in the world?"

The answer to such question is found in ed school and NCTM catechism:

"While Singapore and other programs teach low level problem solving skills, the programs do not teach critical and higher order thinking skills. These students are not as creative as ours."

One of the chief catechists, Dr. Alan Schoenfeld in his article "Making Mathematics Work for All Children: Issues of Standards, Testing and Equity" (Educational Researcher, Vol/Edition 31, 2002) identifies the "very common misunderstanding that in mathematics students have to master skills before using them for applications and problem solving. People who believe this will focus first on skills, thinking that applications and problem solving can come later. The result is the traditional curriculum (and traditional skills-oriented assessments). An underlying assumption of reform is that students can develop mastery of skills through problem solving."

Teachers are schooled and rehearsed in this answer. Be prepared!

They even have an answer to the claim that data that show programs like Singapore or Saxon result in higher text scores. Schoenfeld in the same article warns: "As long as the public continues to believe in the value and meaningfulness of traditional skills-based tests, reform faces a major uphill battle."

In other words, you can't trust the tests!

! As far as the point about teachers supplementing texts, they're ready for /that one too. "All teachers supplement texts." I've had it said to me by a school board member.

By all means write your letter. Don't be afraid to use the same tactics they do. Tell them "research shows" that the reform approach of developing mastery of skills through problem solving doesn't work. I believe KTM has some listings of research that show this. Of course, you can also do like they do and don't cite the research, but I don't advise that.

-- BarryGarelick - 01 Dec 2006

There's always an answer. Besides, they don't HAVE to do anything. The only mechanism that parents have is to get control of the school board. Even if this happened, how does a school board get a school and the teachers to do something they really don't want to do. Very nasty business.

Most parents (for about 25% of the kids) in our town pay to put their kids in other schools (many using EM, but the expectations and supplementation are higher) and wash their hands of the public schools. The public schools love this. The troublemakers are gone.

Perhaps at best, one could organize enough parents to demand a separate curriculum track.

-- SteveH - 01 Dec 2006

Barry, I have downloaded many of the research articles cited on KTM, NYC HOLD and D'ED Reckoning. My binder gets thicker and thicker.

As a result, I know that research shows:

Spiraling curricula are bad for weak learners because they don't get enough practice to master skills;

Spiraling curricula are bad for strong students because they keep revisiting skills they should have mastered by fourth grade instead of moving on to more sophisticated math;

Problem solving is a bad way to introduce new math concepts because it places too much of a load on working memory. This makes it hard for kids to transfer concepts to long-term memory;

Children retain math concepts in long-term memory only if they overlearn the material, which means they should practice, practice, practice; and

The largest educational research project in our history, Project Follow Through, showed that direct instruction -- not problem solving ---is the most effective way of teaching "at-risk" kids.

Then, of course, in addition to all this research, there are the expert opinions of the math professors.

-- RobynW - 01 Dec 2006

I am amazed by Dr. Schoenfeld's statement that it is a "common misunderstanding" that math students have to master skills before they can use them in problem solving. Maybe his approach can work for the top students, but how can any sane person believe that kids who are average and below can learn this way?

-- RobynW - 01 Dec 2006

"While Singapore and other programs teach low level problem solving skills, the programs do not teach critical and higher order thinking skills. These students are not as creative as ours."

The arrogance is breath-taking!

I bet that students who master supposedly "low level problem solving skills" will do much better with problems requiring so-called "critical and higher order thinking skills" than "creative" math cripples.

Can these NCTM clowns point to any comparisons and give actual examples of these fabled critical and higher order thinking skills?

-- CharlesH - 01 Dec 2006

Do the kids have to do recursive partial sums until there are no more carries?

heavens to murgatroyd!

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

Is that how you spell murgatroyd?

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

The sixth graders in our neighborhood use the lattice method as their primary method of multiplying.

Good Lord.

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

Robyn

Write short AND OFTEN.

Spaced repetition rules.

sort of

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

This is a difficult topic because mastery is hard to define.

Actually it's not - but I've forgotten where I posted the item about fluency.

To be "fluent" a student needs to be able to do....one problem a minute?

Something like that....

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

The arguments I'm using in my district are:

• curricula must be based in cognitive science, not constructivism (working memory, speed of relearning new material, etc.)

• international comparisons (deadly)

• process by which Math TRAILBLAZERS was selected was unprofessional due to curriculum committee acting as advocate for TRAILBLAZERS, not dispassionate evaluators (failure to disclose CA rejection of curriculum; failure to disclose the mathematicians' letter; failure to disclose experimental status of curriculum)

• process by which Math TRAILBLAZERS was selected was unprofessional due to absence of content specialists on committee (i.e., committee included teachers but no mathematicians or applied-math professionals)

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

Take a look at the messages on Irvington Parents Forum

You may have to go here. It's open, so anyone should be able to read.

You can pretty much tell which posts are about constructivist math.

I'm figuring out how to put across VERY short factoid-slash-arguments, and to keep doing it.

It takes a long time for people's thinking to change, and practically parents (including me to a large degree) start out as "constructivists" or with a lot of constructivist assumptions.

In my case, it's almost impossible for people here to "grok" the fact that KIPP is blowing us out of the water - and I understand why.

We've all spent years and years and years hearing about the horrors of inner city schools, the IQ gap, the shocking "bad culture" of the poor, and on and on and on.....to say to people: the KIPP Academy kids are way ahead of our kids simply does not compute.

So I have to use spaced repetition.

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

I am amazed by Dr. Schoenfeld's statement that it is a "common misunderstanding" that math students have to master skills before they can use them in problem solving. Maybe his approach can work for the top students, but how can any sane person believe that kids who are average and below can learn this way?

I think that part of the reason a sane person might believe this is that the kids are expected to use calculators. If you use a calculator to do long division, you don't actually need to know the algorithm to get the answers. This allows the student to NOT master the skill of long division and still use it in problem solving.

I think this is misguided, but it isn't insane. Imagine, for example, that people expected to type instead of writing out by longhand. Is it still required to "master" penmanship, or can one proceed to composition without it (because one uses a typewriter)? Clearly, you can skip penmanship and move on to componsition if a typewriter is present.

I think the analogy is flawed, but it doesn't require someone to be a lunatic to believe it.

-Mark Roulo

-- KtmGuest - 01 Dec 2006

btw, the international comparisons & the cog sci arguments are extremely powerful.

First of all, the majority of parents want their kids on par with their peers in Europe and Asia.

HINT: ALWAYS USE THE PHRASE "EUROPE AND ASIA"

(i.e. don't just say "Singapore")

When you point out that average and below-average kids in Europe and Asia master algebra in 8th grade, people hear it - and they hear it pretty quickly.

The cognitive science argument works quite well, too, because in fact everyone knows you need practice in order to learn to mastery, etc.

Cognitive science jibes with common sense; constructivism opposes common sense. That's a win for us.

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

The "process" arguments - i.e. the curriculum committee failed to disclose important info etc. - aren't particularly strong in the sense of being arguments that would cause people to rise up and fight TRAILBLAZERS.

However, process arguments are important to make because the process is at the heart of what's wrong, which is that parents have no vote in how (or even if) their children are taught.

"Educators" act as advocates, not professionals, and do as they please.

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

No genuine professional could say, as the middle school principal said last year, that "all the research shows this is the way to go."

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

Questioning the process is important for the long-term.

Not that anything's going to happen one way or another, but I figure: let them think about why our kids aren't learning anything.

Failing that, let them know parents have noticed their kids aren't learning anything.

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

I'm also beginning to push the "social justice" issue, which is almost certainly large and very painful.

I've been trying to think whether I've seen a single working class kid in Phase 4 math.

I don't think I have.

("Working class" defined as parents without Bachelors degree)

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

Here's a fun one: how Trailblazers was selected

-- CatherineJohnson - 01 Dec 2006

Well, I have good news. I learned today that another mother in our district is organizing parents to oppose EM. She teaches at a large university and has strong opinions about education.

She is asking concerned parents to write the administration and, of course, I am going to. It would be easy for the administration to dismiss me --- my daughter has a math LD. They could say she has "unique" problems. It's going to be harder to dismiss these other people.

-- RobynW - 02 Dec 2006

"I'm also beginning to push the "social justice" issue, which is almost certainly large and very painful. I've been trying to think whether I've seen a single working class kid in Phase 4 math."

To show this, you can get written feedback by honors math track students about how much help they received outside of school. Our schools see enough(?) students get into the honors track so they think that everything is OK. I hear otherwise at the supermarket. Parents need to organize.

-- SteveH - 02 Dec 2006

Well, I have good news. I learned today that another mother in our district is organizing parents to oppose EM. She teaches at a large university and has strong opinions about education.

Oh that is good news!

-- CatherineJohnson - 02 Dec 2006

To show this, you can get written feedback by honors math track students about how much help they received outside of school.

Already done.

The math teacher I keep mentioning - the one with 34 years teaching experience - has sent detailed memos, has a complete file of his (unanswered) emails to the school year, has copied all of us, etc.

Parents don't absolutely need to organize, though I agree that organizing is good.

KEEP THINKING ABOUT LISTSERVS!

SPACED REPETITION!

The listserv brings the grocery store conversations straight into the heart of the school.

It is now conceded by one and all - it is a firm reality - that the Phase 4 kids are being tutored and retaught.

Everyone knows it - and, more importantly, everyone knows that everyone knows it.

I'm very close to beginning a "series" for the Forum on Social Justice and Tutoring In Irvington.

The reason I can write those posts is that everyone already knows the situation, including school administrators.

-- CatherineJohnson - 02 Dec 2006

The critical factor is for the administration to know that you know that they know.

Two years ago Ed told our superintendent that "there is an awful lot of tutoring going on in Irvington."

(That was before we knew how much there really is!)

She gave him a sharp look.

I interpreted the sharp look to mean she was going to get to the bottom of things!

Nope

She just sailed on with her Strategic Plan.

The landscape is completely different now.

Everyone knows that there is mass tutoring going on in Irvington, and everyone knows the district knows.

-- CatherineJohnson - 02 Dec 2006

She is asking concerned parents to write the administration and, of course, I am going to. It would be easy for the administration to dismiss me --- my daughter has a math LD. They could say she has "unique" problems. It's going to be harder to dismiss these other people.

yup

-- CatherineJohnson - 02 Dec 2006

"I'm very close to beginning a "series" for the Forum on Social Justice and Tutoring In Irvington. "

Math is not difficult. Start in Kindergarten and focus on mastery of the basics. Use existing, well proven curricula. No extra class time or homework time is necessary. No extra teacher training is necessary. No tutoring is necessary. No parents required to make sure the times table is memorized. Algebra in 8th grade for all. The solution is right there in front of their faces. Inch by inch, math is a cinch.

The charge? Schools and teachers are not doing what they know could be done. They place their philosophy and opinions before those who need their help the most. They don't get the job done. It's their job, it's not a difficult job, and it's not the job of the student or the parent. Teach.

-- SteveH - 03 Dec 2006

"They don't get the job done. It's their job, it's not a difficult job, and it's not the job of the student or the parent. Teach. "

Steve

Your post made me think of open house at our son’s HS. After a while all the teachers’ spiels started sounding alike. I’m sure they were trying their best to communicate the full, rich experience our children were having in their classrooms. And I have no complaints.

Then our son’s Latin teacher. Old school type, had previously taught for 20+ years at a Catholic prep school. He put it simply:

“There’s not much to say about my class. I teach and the students learn. I sit in the big desk and they sit in the small desks. They learn Latin in here. You’ll see.”

Nothing about group sessions discovering the many aspects of how they would be learning, no mention about how they’ll spend a month exploring the social injustice in ancient Rome, apparently no group hugs either. It was refreshing. I’m sure this teacher would never describe himself as a facilitator.

-- TexasDesert - 03 Dec 2006

“There’s not much to say about my class. I teach and the students learn. I sit in the big desk and they sit in the small desks. They learn Latin in here. You’ll see.”

My kind of teacher.

-- SteveH - 04 Dec 2006

Math is not difficult. Start in Kindergarten and focus on mastery of the basics. Use existing, well proven curricula. No extra class time or homework time is necessary.

That's the astounding thing I've learned.

It's NOT difficult.

If I could take Christopher completely out of his math class at school, he'd be whizzing through the subject.

As things stand, we're just barely managing to hang in, and his score declined from a low 4 to a high 3 from last year to this.

A really bad curriculum combined with bad pedagogy and an ineffective teacher.

That's what we've got.

-- CatherineJohnson - 04 Dec 2006

"A really bad curriculum combined with bad pedagogy and an ineffective teacher."

Add to that a game or contest mentality, where everything is a test; everything is up to the student (and parents). Either the expectations are so low (especially in the lowest grades) that it's up to the kids to do more on their own, or all of the classwork, homework, and tests force the students to discover (figure it out) on their own. Teachers don't teach. It's the student's job to figure out how to learn.

This dawned on me this weekend when I was helping my son with his math and English homework. The teachers never give them enough information or background knowledge to do the work. Direct parental involvement (teaching) is required to get a good education. I'm always helping him with his homework. My parents never had to do this. In the old days, one would call this bad teaching. Nowadays, it's called discovery learning.

It's a mentality where they want kids to figure things out ... with less, rather than more information. Apparently, if you teach kids explicitly how to do things, they will never learn to figure things out. But these are not carefully-designed lessons to help kids figure out specific things. It's just a general approach to teaching. For my son's school, it seems more like a lack of attention to details. It may look like discovery, but it's really poor teaching and planning.

If I didn't help him with his homework and explain things to him, he would be extremely frustrated and getting much worse grades - a negative spiral.

When schools talk about discovery and higher-order thinking processes, it distracts people from questions of basic competence and specific, quantifiable goals. If they put the onus on the student rather than the teacher, they avoid all questions of teaching competence. They can't tell the difference between bad teaching and student learning issues. (Both of which are their responsibility, however.) Poor results are blamed on the students because there will always be some students (perhaps with lots of parental support) who do well. Schools never want to investigate this effect.

It's a fundamental philosophical flaw. It hides a lot of bad teaching and it means that the only way to get a good education is if the parents make sure it happens. This creates larger academic gaps. This is the social justice issue. Schools require direct parental involvement to get a good education.

A couple of parents on our school board know that things aren't perfect, but they want to be part of the solution - not part of the problem. This is fine, but it's interesting to note that they are very involved with their kids' education. They expect other parents to be involved with their kids' education. This is expected. The discovery teaching techniques do not bother them. They are able and willing to do their part. Their kids are doing fine. They seem to completely miss the facts that many parents can't or won't do what they are doing, and that other kids might not be as smart as their kids. The system works for them. It's quite amazing!

Many complain that poverty needs to be fixed first. The problem is not poverty. The problem is an educational system that requires parental involvement to get a good education.

Ironically, progressive educational ideas work best (only? sometimes?) for smart students backed by willing and able parents; just the opposite goal that their (typically liberal and affluent) supporters want.

-- SteveH - 04 Dec 2006

"Ironically, progressive educational ideas work best ... for smart students backed by willing and able parents"

It is ironic. I grew up in a small town where most parents did not have college degrees and few had money for tutoring. Our school did not outsource education to parents. Kids were drilled in arithmetic in school.

Now I live in a middle and upper-middle-class suburb reputed to have a good school system. It is certainly well funded. I wonder how the kids I grew up with would do in this school system. I wonder how their parents would handle "homelinks."

-- RobynW - 04 Dec 2006

"I grew up in a small town where most parents did not have college degrees and few had money for tutoring."

Yes, I did too! I grew up in a blue collar town where everyone worked at a paper mill. Many of my friend's moms didn't work, but I don't recall them helping with homework. My mom couldn't because she had to work. However, the work ethic was strong. You had better make good grades or else!

I, too, wonder how the kids I grew up with would do in today's school system.

--PaulaV

-- PaulaVal - 04 Dec 2006

I'm always helping him with his homework.

This is the crux of the matter.

"help with homework"

I now believe absolutely we've got a "bad gets normal" situation in which so many parents have become able to "help with homework" that "help with homework" has gobbled up the schools, or many of them.

I think that's the only way you can account for the fact that the KIPP Academy has 80% of its 8th graders passing Regents Math A while a school like Irvington has only 35% of our kids passing.

-- CatherineJohnson - 04 Dec 2006