Entries from TrailBlazers

While there I debriefed a high school girl about the math track at Irvington High School.

The Irvington math track is something parents know essentially nothing about unless they do things like debrief high school kids at the school store. There's no brochure; there's nothing on the web site. It's a secret.

OK, it's not a secret. My problem is I don't see why I have to work to find out what the math track is in my own school district.

I've mentioned more than once that for a variety of reasons Irvington grade school ended up with 4 math tracks starting in 3rd grade, a situation no one inside the school liked or ever intended to create. They started with the idea of an enrichment program for the best math kids, then one thing led to another, and they ended up with four math tracks.

At the beginning of 3rd grade Christopher was placed in 'Phase 3,' one step down from Phase 4, the most advanced track. He was 8.

We had no idea what Phase 3 meant, and we were never told. We just thought.....well, I don't know what we thought. At some point I realized they were hitting the Phase 4 kids with a lot of Math Olympiad problems the kids couldn't do. Often the parents couldn't do them, either. Apart from that, both phases were using the same textbook (SRA Math) and moving through it at basically the same rate.

Giving kids a lot of Math Olympiad problems they couldn't do seemed like a waste of time (and in fact is a waste of time), so I didn't worry about it.

At the end of 4th grade we were told, directly, by Christopher's 4th grade teacher: 'Don't worry about the phases. They don't make any difference. All the kids have the same ability.'

Because of the funky way the Phases evolved in the first place, she was probably right that there wasn't a significant difference in ability level, so we took her word for it that there was 'no difference' between Phase 3 and Phase 4.

Then, at the beginning of 5th grade, we showed up for school and discovered that, lo and behold, the Phase 4 kids were using the 6th grade book. Phase 3 kids were using the 5th grade book.

All of a sudden this difference that was not a difference was a difference of one year.

That's the back story.

The point is: none of us parents knew, back in 3rd grade, that all but the Phase 4 kids had just been tracked out of calculus in high school.

We had no idea. Zero. Christopher was 8; we were one year out from 9/11 and 10 months out from the anthrax attacks. (We lost our TONYSS tests that year because they went through one of the anthrax post offices. So we didn't know how he'd done on the state tests.) We weren't thinking about high school calculus.

This is not the way a school district should work.

Track a kid out of high school calculus in the 3rd grade and not tell the parents?

That's not the social contract I thought I was signing when we moved here.

So today I debriefed this girl.

Like Christopher, she was placed in Phase 3. Then, at some point, she 'turned out to be good at math.'

This was not discovered until her freshman year in high school, it seems. A week from now, when school starts, she'll be joining the honors track.

To jump tracks, she had to spend her entire summer taking math at Rye Country Day School, which I'm sure cost an arm and a leg. She also had to get permission from the high school; she had to petition them to move her to the honors track this fall.

When I got home and figured out exactly how much ground she had to make up in one summer, I was stunned. The advanced kids are about a year and a half ahead of everyone else, which means she had to take and master all the math those kids have been taking and mastering for the last 2 years. And she had to do it in 8 weeks.

She said it was torture. She was up at 7 am every day doing math 'til she went to bed. I'm impressed as heck that she did it, but in my view it's pedagogically unsound, and she should not have been put in this position in the first place.

Worse yet, my own experience is that you can't cram math. You need time for math to sink in. Unless you're a natural born whiz, you need to be doing math every day, and living with it.

And, of course, we know from years of research on learning & memory that crammed knowledge disappears rapidly. (See Practice Makes Perfect But Only If Your Practice Beyond the Point of Perfection.)

I think it's extremely unlikely that her parents knew, when she was put in Phase 3 math, what kind of heroic effort it would take for their daughter to get back out of Phase 3 math.

I know for a fact that none of the parents around me have any idea Phase 3 means no calculus in high school.

The incredible thing is, they still don't know.

I made noises about this all last year, to anyone who would listen, which apparently did some good, because some 5th-grade parents raised the question in get-together meetings with the Middle School principal. By the time Ed & I went to our own get-together, on the last available date, the principal told us that parents at the other meetings had been asking whether their Phase 3 kids would be able to take calculus in high school. He acted surprised anyone would ask such a thing.

Then he said Phase 3 kids wouldn't be able to take calculus in high school, at which point the vice principal jumped in and said, Yes, they would be able to take calculus if they wished.

And there we left it.

That is not what I call Information. The principal says no & the vice principal says yes.....and that's an answer? That's it? They've had 3 weeks since the first get-together to figure it out and they still don't know?

And if the principal & vice principal of the middle school don't know whether a Phase 3 kid is on track to take calculus in high school, how am I supposed to know?

After the meeting, I was thinking the vice principal was more likely to be right, because she's been here awhile and the principal is new.

But no.

The principal was right.

Phase 3 kids are not going to be taking calculus in high school unless their parents sign them up for a brutal summer of 12-hour a day algebra & geometry catch-up 4 years from now.


Of course, now that Trailblazers is coming in and tracks are going out.....it'll be interesting.

I own the 5th grade Trailblazers book, which is the final book in the series. I've read it.

I don't see anyone coming out of Trailblazers on track to take calculus in high school.

UPDATE 10-9-2006: Based on what I hear from other parents, the tracks seem to have been preserved. It's possible the administration finally looked at the calculus track and realized they'd abolished it. I surmise this because two years ago parents of mathematically gifted children were pressing Raph Napolitano, the Assistant Superintendent in charge of curriculum, for an answer to the question of whether their children would be able to take calculus in high school. He didn't know. That was his answer. He didn't know whether mathematically gifted 3rd graders taking Math Trailblazers would be able to take calculus in high school. That's typical of this district. Parents are given no syllabi, no scope and sequence, no topic matrix. Unless we debrief other parents and their children we have no idea what lies ahead, or what our children need to know today to be prepared for advanced high school courses tomorrow. It takes many weeks and many emails and telephone calls to get a simple answer to a simple question. So I could be wrong about the tracks. Maybe we have them; maybe we don't.

UPDATE 10-24-2006: A friend whose child is in 4th grade says the tracks are gone. I have no idea what's going on.

question about calculus and college

The girl I was talking to says her brother has the impression that colleges want to see 'BC calculus' on kids' high school transcripts.

Is that true? (He's applying to the Ivies.)

My close friend in CA says that all colleges now require kids to take calculus....(her son is a freshman at Occidental). So either you need to have taken it in high school, or you'll have to take it in college.

Does anyone know anything more about this?

Thanks—


learning a year of math in 2 months
overlearning
remediating Los Angeles algebra students
Terminator

James Milgram on long division & time lag in math learning
James Milgram statement to Congress



key words: summer school cram cramming math cram math sophomore Irvington High School freshman

---

SusanOnMadMinutes 13 Nov 2005 - 18:34 CatherineJohnson


Susan used Mad Minutes with both kids--

I agree about the "mad minute" approach for all levels of math ability. I used it with both kids and I'm glad I did. It just helps with the speed and proficiency.

Gifted kids are notorious for not wanting to memorize anything. It's too boring. I had to make mine do speed drills all through first and second grade. I'm still doing it with my LD 8th grader.

I remember when math kid was learning multiplication in the first grade. He informed me that it was stupid to memorize them because he could always just count the the groups. I said, "Quick, what's 7 X 8?" His eyes went up looking for those groups, and after a couple of seconds of his looking for them and then trying to skip count by 7, I said, "That's why you memorize them."

I think it helps in the confidence department, as well, to get that speed going earlier than if it just came through practice. And if practice is the key, like "exposure" to lots of words was to the whole language crowd, then what exactly happens to the kids who don't get enough of that practice? Where is the place where enough practice crystalizes into math fact proficiency, especially with these "spiraling" curriculums that keep pushing mastery on down the road?

Trailblazers, as well as other NCTM curriculums, never seem to have a plan for the ones left behind. And I guess you can't ever know who is accountable since mastery was never the goal to begin with.

Interestingly, both kids do love the minute drills where they try to beat their last best score, so I never have any trouble giving them to them.

Well, that's two.

I have to say....I simply can't see any reason on the planet why worksheets would be bad (though TRAILBLAZERS explicitly states that worksheets are destructive!)

Given that there's no (apparent) downside, and given that they've worked for other kids, I'm certainly going to be using them with any child whose math education I'm involved in. (I'm starting to pick up a few! It's incredibly fun. More on that later.)

modifying worksheets

That reminds me.

One of the kids who took my Singapore Math class just could not get through a Saxon work sheet--and he didn't improve any over time, either. All the other kids got fast fast. (It really was remarkable.)

This particular boy is BOUNCY; he is one high-energy kid. He just can't stand the thought of a 5-minute worksheet; he probably takes one look at those sheets and sees what I would see if I were contemplating singlehandedly painting a two-story house.

I told his mom: try having him do ONE LINE of the worksheet as fast as he can.

I don't know if she'll get to it, but when they get back from Italy in January, I think I'll experiment with him, and see how he does. Just click the stop watch and tell him to call 'TIME!' when he hits the end of one line.

I bet that will work.

---

EverydayMathLongDivision 13 Sep 2005 - 15:06 CatherineJohnson


Thanks to NYC HOLD I have a graphic of Everyday Math's substitute division algorithm. TRAILBLAZERS teaches the same approach, which it calls 'forgiving division.'

...instead of teaching long division, students are taught to divide numbers using the partial products method, a technique where children guess how many times a number goes into another and keep subtracting the guesses until they come up with the answer (see box). This method works, but it takes more time and doesn't allow the student to divide past the decimal point.

[snip]

Isaacs and others defend the alternative algorithms by explaining that they teach students how math works. The partial product method of division, for example, is a lot more transparent to students than the long division method.

I'm sure he's wrong about this. I found partial product division quite confusing myself when I used it.

otoh, I think partial product division might work as a teaching tool when used on simple demonstration problems. (I tried it on a complicated division problem and got completely lost mid-stream.) I might use a problem like 16 divided by 2 to show that division is repeated subtraction, analogous to multiplication being repeated addition.

I haven't tried it with any children just learning long division, but if I ever get a chance to, I'll take notes.

the honeymoon

Some parents like the program as well. "It's sort of incredible," said Susan Pottinger, whose son Theo attends kindergarten at P.S. 261 in the Cobble Hill section of Brooklyn. "For him it's great fun. He's fascinated by numbers. He sees patterns everywhere," she said. "He'll put shoes away and alternate shoes with sneakers and say, 'See I'm making a pattern with my shoes.' "

We parents (well, some of us) spend those early elementary school years in a wonderland. Then the you-know-what hits the fan in 5th grade.

source:
Weighing the Factors Does the City's Standardized Math Curriculum Measure Up? By Amy Sara Clark

update

Lone Ranger supplies this link to lattice multiplication, the method Everyday Math teaches children when they cover multiplication. Carolyn points out that lattice multiplication is distinctly opaque; it obscures rather than reveals the fact that multiplication depends on the distributive property.

Here's another link to lattice multiplication at Math Forum Carolyn posted awhile back.


why long division?

Milgram & Klein links:

• Why Long Division? speech by James Milgram, Stanford University
  
• The Role of Long Division in the K-12 Curriculum
  by David Klein, Department of Mathematics California State University, Northridge and R. James Milgram, Department of Mathematics, Stanford University
  

Everyday Math's alternative division algorithm
forgiving division
forgiving division, part 2
try this with forgiving division
who says long division is hard?
advice from Canada
Everyday Math division algorithm fighting innumeracy at CO
conceptual understanding vs numbers

keywords: Columbiajournalismstudent EverdayMatharticle

---

WickelgrenOnYoungChildrenAndMath 17 Sep 2006 - 01:14 CatherineJohnson


back story:

My neighbor, the statistician, showed me her copy of Math Coach: A Parent's Guide to Helping Children Succeed in Math quite awhile back, before either of our kids had had any trouble in math class. I ordered a copy just because I order lots of copies of books I'd like to read but then don't.

So the book was sitting there on my shelf when Christopher came home with his 39 on the Unit 6 test & I subsequently failed to teach him fractions using SRA Math. I needed help.

It was the right book at the right time. A page-turner.

Most of what I believed to be true of math ed & math achievement, I discovered, was wrong. Severely wrong. I had been operating on the basis of sheer ignorance, naivete, and boneheaded cliche.

This is the observation that probably shocked me the most. It appears in Wickelgren's chapter on finding a school for your child:

There are schools with even less structure than Eastside. Take the Sudbury Valley School, a private K-12 school in a Boston suburb. This school gives each child complete freedom to choose how they spend their time at school. There are no classes except those specifically requested by a group of students. Children learn largely on their own, reading books, talking to each other and to teachers or outside experts, solving problems, playing games and sports, practicing musical instruments, doing arts and crafts, and anything else that can be done on the school grounds.

While you can read at length about the school's strengths on its web site, one of its biggest potential benefits is that every child can proceed at his or her own pace, in math and in other subjects as well.

There are also potential drawbacks. Since young children are not generally highly motivated to learn math, they may choose not to study much of it.

I was bowled over.

I had always thought kids want to learn things they're good at. Christopher is good at social studies, and he wants to learn it. At night he'll bug his dad to 'give me trivia questions.' (Give me superficial facts, Daddy!) Ed finally refused to do it anymore, because he ran out of trivia.

Christopher also has a collection of geography trivia books that he reads, and when he was 7 I read all of the first volume in the History of US series out loud to him as his bedtime story.

That was the book he wanted to hear.

So...I assumed kids wanted to learn subjects they had a talent for.

According to Wayne Wickelgren, this is not the case with math.

Or, at least, not generally. Math talent doesn't (necessarily) manifest itself in an obvious desire to learn the multiplication tables. (Or to write essays on My Special Number.)

late bloomers

That one observation pretty much changed my life. I decided, then and there, that I didn't know whether Christopher had any talent for math or not, or what his eventual level of interest in the subject might be--or, more importantly--could be, given a decent education K-12.

I also knew he had good general intelligence, which meant he had the ability to learn a whole lot of math whether he was going to end up in a math-related career or not.

I decided right then and there that that was what was going to happen. Christopher was going to learn math, lots of it, and learn it well.

We were going to keep the doors open.

When Christopher reached college, he would be in a position to decide to pursue a math-related career or not. That decision would not have been made for him in 3rd grade, when he got sorted into Phase 3.

It wasn't too long after this that I met Carolyn and heard her story: flunked algebra in high school (right?), didn't decide to major in math until senior year in college, then got a Ph.D. In math. Another wake up call.

more late bloomers

Two more stories.

One comes from Christopher's 4th grade teacher. Her daughter was reaching the end of high school, and it was time to do SAT prep.

So her mom hired a tutor, and within a couple of weeks the guy was reporting that her daughter had strong talent in math.

She had no idea. Neither she nor her daughter had the first clue that this kid had a knack for math. Now, working one-on-one with a tutor who, IIRC, had a Ph.D. in math (or engineering, possibly) she was flying.

I have no idea where that girl will end up, what she'll major in, or which job or career she'll pursue.

It doesn't matter. The point is: she's good at math, and she went through 11 years of formal education thinking she wasn't.

you can't predict the future, or even the past

Story number two comes from a friend of ours. As a boy he had two or three chums who sat by each other in class & were bright kids. They were the kind of kids who could learn whatever you threw at them, and they got As in all their subjects & went to good colleges & universities. They got As in math, too, of course, but none of them was a whiz. Our friend became a lawyer.

One of the gang shocked everyone by growing up to become a world-famous econometrician.

No one can understand how this happened. This kid never showed any special talent for or interest in math. He was just a smart kid, like the rest of them. Our friend said that to this day, whenever any of them get together, they always ask each other how that friend could turn out to be not only an econometrician, but a world-famous one.

Go figure.

What I like about this story is the fact that not only could this boy's future as World Famous Econometrician not be predicted when he was 8, it can't be back-predicted now, when he's 40.

Barbara Oakley's bio

I just remembered: Barbara Oakley is in the same category. Here's her bio:

I started studying engineering much later than many engineering students, because my original intention had been to become a linguist. I enlisted in the U.S. Army right after high school and spent a year studying Russian at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey California. The Army eventually sent me to the University of Washington, where I received my first degree–a B.A. in Slavic Languages and Literature. Eventually, I served four years in Germany as a Signal Officer, and rose to become a Captain. After my commitment ended, I decided to leave the Army and study engineering so that I could better understand the communications equipment I had been working with.

Barbara sent me an email that I won't quote without her permission (I'm WAY behind on email). But her story inside an email is more dramatic than her story here, though no different in outline. Barbara is a person who earned an entire B.A. degree in a humanties field and served a full stint in the Army before figuring out she wanted to major in engineering.

And the reason she decided to study engineering is pretty similar to the reason I've suddenly decided to study math; she got tired of not understanding the stuff she was working on. In her case, that was communications equipment; in my case it's K-12 math.

Obviously, Steve H is right, we simply cannoy be assigning grade school kids to our two Standing Committees: math whiz & math's not his thing.

all English Language Arts all the time

from The Learning Gap by Harold Stevenson and James Stigler:

....American teachers like to teach reading; Asian teachers like to teach mathematics. When we asked teachers in Beijing, nearly all of whom were women, the subject they most liked to teach, 62 percent said mathematics, 29 percent said language arts. The reverse was found in Chicago: 33 percent mentioned mathematics and 47 percent mentioned language arts. There is more to the story than preference, however. Americans simply emphasize reading more than mathematics. Despite the large amount of time already spent in reading instruction, more than 40 percent of the suggestions made by Minneapolis mothers who wanted an increased emphasis on academic subjects said they thought that the subject should be reading. Fewer than 20 percent mentioned mathematics.

These data lead to the obvious conclusion that American children do less well in mathematics than do Chinese and japanese children partly because they spend less time studying mathematics....Conversely, American children may fare better in reading, relatively speaking, because they spend more time on this sujbect.

I mentioned yesterday: it's a commonplace for people to say, 'I was never any good at math.'

No one says, 'I was never any good at reading.'

English Language Arts in Irvington

I've seen this here in Irvington.

My sense is that Irvington does a good job teaching reading. Not that I know what I'm talking about, but that's my sense. (fyi, after trying to teach out of the SRA Math book myself, I also think our grade school teachers are near-geniuses at teaching math, too.....& I'm not kidding about that. It was tough.)

Christopher's 6th grade schedule includes:

• 2 periods of English language arts, one for reading & one for writing
• 1 period of social studies, taught by a teacher who told us, on back to school night, "I am an English language arts teacher at heart"
• 1 period of drama

That's 4 periods out of 8, half his day devoted to English language arts. He has 1 period for math, 1 period for science, and that's it. The other 2 periods are specials: study skills, music, art, drama, P.E., technology. Technology will mean creating an online 'portfolio' of his best work in 6th grade, not learning how to program. Study skills is about reading & taking notes, not doing problem sets.

And, on back to school night, the math teacher told us the kids would be keeping a math journal, because a lot of kids in accelerated math probably aren't as strong in ELA, so 'we try to help them with English language arts.'

Thus far she has done nothing of the sort, thank heavens, and she's stopped grading the kids' math tests on spelling, which she did last year. I gather she had a lot of complaints about it, and I made a point of asking her, in front of the other parents, whether she would be grading spelling this year, too. (This is what we call a warning shot.) So she told the kids she wouldn't, and she hasn't. otoh, Christopher is now spelling parenthesis parenthies, so be careful what you wish for.

another story

This last story pretty much sums it up, I think.

I know I've mentioned the fact that we were clueless back when Christopher was in his early elementary years.

So, unbeknownst to us, he was placed in Phase 3 ELA as well as Phase 3 math. Actually, we're still clueless; I have no idea what kind of sorting & phasing they do with ELA. All I know is that in K-5 they divide the kids up into ability groups within the classroom, rather than separating them into different classes taught by different teachers, as they do with math.

In the hall outside Christopher's 4th grade class, after the year was over, I happened to run into his teacher and we fell into conversation, which led to the subject of Christopher's progress that year. I remember I was expressing gratitude for some especially good teaching she'd done, but I don't remember the details. It was probably about English language arts, since she taught him every subject but math.

One thing led to another, and suddenly I heard her saying, "Oh, I could see when he came into my class he wasn't a 3. He was much better than that. Sometimes you just have to ignore the tests."

Christopher had taught himself to read in Kindergarten, had tested two years above grade level in reading back in the 2nd grade, and had just received 4s on both the ELA & the math sections of the NY state tests. He'd been in the advanced reading group all year long as far as we knew.

So when was he a 3?

It took me a moment to recover, but I managed to keep her talking. "I pushed him," she said. "I knew he could do it." And, again: "You can't believe the tests."

Wow.

Think about the implications.

Here we have your dufus mom, completely out of the loop about tests, 3s, & 4s. And it doesn't matter; it doesn't hurt the kid. The teacher steps up to the plate, checks out the kid, decides for herself 'he's not a 3,' then sees to it he stops being a 3, and becomes a 4.

No extra reward, no extra praise, no extra payment or promotion. She just does it, because it's her job, and because she's good at it.

Perfect.

(And yes, I know; I'm tired of 3s and 4s, too. But 3s and 4s are a kind of shorthand, and a useful one.)


The point is: I have never heard this story told about a Phase 3 kid in math. Never.

Until this fall (that's another story), only a tiny handful of kids had ever moved from Phase 3 to 4. Maybe one 1 per year.

I've talked to the Chair of the middle school program about this issue, to one of the guidance counselors, to our 4-5 principal, and to numerous other teachers & parents.

Not one of them has mentioned the school or a teacher pushing a kid out of 3 and into 4. Whenever a move is made, the impetus has come from the parent, not the school. And the school resents it. (I've mentioned this before. We have a meta-narrative about pushy parents pressuring the school to put their kids in Phase 4 math when they don't belong there. Everyone subscribes to this narrative, including aides & other parents.)


The lesson I take away from this is that we really do have some major talent in some schools in this country, in the teaching of English Language Arts. I'm lucky to have my own kids in one such school district.

We need the same kind of teachers, with the same kind of know-how and confidence, in elementary mathematics.


Wickelgren on introducing algebra
Wayne Wickelgren on algebra in 7th & 8th grade
Wickelgren on math talent & when to supplement
late bloomers in math & Wickelgren on children's desire to learn math
Wayne Wickelgren on mastery of math & on creativity & domain knowledge
Wickelgren on why math is confusing


Confessions of an engineering school wash-out
more confessions of an engineering school washout
the Terminator, or 'the magical number 7, plus or minus 2'
On Having a Math Brain (by Carolyn)
math brain debunked (by Carolyn)
math professors versus computer science professors

---

NsfVersusNrc 24 May 2006 - 00:08 CatherineJohnson



I've just become aware of a massive bibliography of
studies on NSF-funded K-12 curricula provided to
school districts by the National Science Foundation.

The Changing Mathematics Curriculum:

An Annotated Bibliography Third Edition April 2005

The document's 60 pages include 3 studies of
Math Trailblazers:

About This Publication

Math Trailblazers: research and results

and:




and:

round up the usual suspects

• Isaacs, A. = Andy Isaacs, TIMS Senior Curriculum Developer
• Wagreich, P. = Philip Wagreich, TIMS Director and Co-Principal Investigator
• Gartzman, M. = Marty Gartzman, TIMS Senior Curriculum Developer

• Carter, A. = Andy Carter, TIMS Curriculum Developer
• Beissinger, J. S., = Janet Simpson Beissinger
• Cirulis, A. = Astrida E. Cirulis, TIMS Senior Curriculum Developer
• Gartzman, M. = Marty Gartzman, TIMS Senior Curriculum Developer
• Kelso, C. = Catherine Randall Kelson, TIMS Senior Curriculum Developer
• Wagreich, P. = Philip Wagreich, TIMS Director and Co-Principal Investigator

• Sconiers, S. = Sheila Sconiers, The ARC Center
• McBride, J. = James A. McBride, Everyday Mathematics (?)
• Isaacs, A., Andy Isaacs, TIMS Senior Curriculum Developer
• Kelso, C., Catherine Randall Kelson, TIMS Senior Curriculum Developer
• Higgins, T. = Traci L. Higgins, Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (?)

Math Trailblazers Student Guide, grade 5

how to write a letter of recommendation

from Susan:

Boy, if I ever send any resumes out I think I'll also send some fabulous letters of recommendations written by me. That should convince them.

---

TrailblazerConfusedBoy 13 Nov 2005 - 14:45 CatherineJohnson



from a ktm commenter:

Jim Milgram, the mathematician from Stanford, told me that in writing his math textbook for middle school, the publishers put in cartoons depicting boys acting lost and dumb and asking questions, with girls knowing what was what, and providing the correct answers. Milgram objected to the publisher about this and they were extremely firm in wanting to keep it that way.

are boys in Trailblazers smart?

Reading the 5th grade 'Student Guide,' I had noticed more than one illustration of a baffled child not understanding math. These images struck me as strange; the 'student helpers' in Primary Mathematics always know math, and are never, ever bewildered by a math lesson.

Now I'm wondering whether the befuddled students in Trailblazers may have been mostly boys.




I'm going to check.

I've got some scanning to do

The good news is that boys in Trailblazers don't appear to be any more stunned by math than girls, which is a relief. In a couple of cases, interestingly, a boy appears to be considerably smarter than the girl he is shown with.....I wonder how that happened. (I'll scan in the image & post later.)


Here's the bad news.

meet Professor Peabody

Professor Peabody appears throughout the Trailblazers Grade 5 Student Guide.

He is a professor, not a teacher.

He is stupid.

Teachers in the Student Guide, by way of contrast, are smart. They know what the answers are, and they understand math. Which is something to be grateful for, but still.

Professor Peabody appears for the first time on page 10, "Analyzing Data":

Which Graph Is Which?

Professor Peabody conducted three surveys at Bessie Coleman School. He collected three sets of data:

1. The number of pockets on the clothes of 15 students in a classroom.

2. The number of pockets on the clothes of the same 15 students as they played on the playground. (Each student wore a jacket outside.)

3. The number of pockets on the clothes of 31 students in a classroom.

For each survey he drew a picture, recorded the data in a table, and made a graph. Just as he finished graphing the data, he remembered that he had to get back to his lab to chck on another experiment. When he got back, he discovered that he had left his pictures and data tables at the school. All he had at his lab were his graphs. When he looked at the graphs, he saw that he had forgotten to write titles on them.

He is a real dufus, that Professor Peabody.


meanwhile, back in Singapore

4 boys shared 2/3 of a pie equally.
What fraction of the pie did each boy receive?

source:
Primary Mathematics 5A Textbook, p. 53

---

TrailblazersProfessorPeabody 15 Oct 2005 - 02:21 CatherineJohnson

---

TrailblazersProfessorPeabodyPart2 15 Oct 2005 - 02:23 CatherineJohnson








source:
MATH TRAILBLAZERS Student Guide, p. 458

---

ProfessorPeabodyPart3 15 Oct 2005 - 02:25 CatherineJohnson






source:
MATH TRAILBLAZERS Student Guide, grade 5, page 496

---

ProfessorPeabodyCorrectCaption 14 Jun 2006 - 21:16 CatherineJohnson





Professor Peabody was having fun exploring different numbers for the circumference and the diameter of circles on his calculator.

---

SmartBoysInTrailblazers 18 Oct 2005 - 13:46 CatherineJohnson



Checking to see whether Math Trailblazers, like some other contemporary textbooks, observes a girls-are-smart/boys-are-stupid principle in selecting and creating graphic elements, I found these three illustrations, on three successive pages (434 - 436) in the grade 5 Student Guide.

---

Nila and David again.

---

The cartoon character in the yellow shirt is a girl, Alexis. The boy is Manny.




Leaving aside Professor Peabody, I didn't see a boys-are-stupid theme in TRAILBLAZERS illustrations & playlets.

But I was surprised to see these three scenes, in each of which the girl is confidently reading or recalling known answers, while the boy is asking the right question.

I'm curious as to how this came about. Every illustration in a contemporary textbook is analyzed and vetted to the nth degree, so how does it happen that we have, on 3 pages in a row, the boy character clearly behaving in a more mathematically sophisticated manner than the girl character?

I should add that this is not simply my interpretation. In each case, the text reinforces the boy character's question, using it as a jumping-off point into further exploration of circumference.

The boy character is providing the narrative force and drive; the girl character is bringing the narrative to a full-stop.^*

showing boys as curious

I was especially struck by the TRAILBLAZERS boy characters in light of this chart specifically forbidding images depicting boys as curious:

source:

Banned Words, Images, and Topics: A Glossary that Runs from the Offensive to the Trivial


return of the repressed

I no longer recall what the phrase return of the repressed actually means, if I ever knew in the first place.

But that's what springs to mind.

A large part of me thinks what happened here is that:

a) the intention was to show a confident girl and a non-confident boy

but

b) the intention ran afoul of the editorial staff's unconscious belief that.....boys are better at math than girls. Nobody is supposed to believe boys are better at math than girls any more, and I'm sure nobody at TRAILBLAZERS believes any such thing. Boys are better at math has been repressed.

But that's the problem with the repressed.

It keeps coming back.


forget about marketing math to children

This is Exhibit A in why we should forget about marketing math to children.

TRAILBLAZERS has TRAILBLAZERS Characters & TRAILBLAZERS Playlets on at least 30% of its pages, and my impression is that every last one is emotionally & cognitively false.

Beaming children doing math, page after page.

No one beams when he does math; if you're doing math, you're concentrating, which means you're probably frowning a bit as you think.

Your face is wearing a Thought Frown.

But beyond that, when grown-ups try to fool children into thinking MATH IS FUN!!!!!! (and yes, I know, math can be fun, and often these days is fun for me) the truth slips out.

One way or another.

I would bet real money that the people responsible for these illustrations, if you injected them with truth serum, would tell you: girls can't do math.

That's why the girls are always beaming, and always confidently reading pre-packaged answers out of books and always reminding the doubting boy of what they've discovered in class so far. (Every single black child in the book is beaming, too. I rest my case.)

The boy gets to express the doubt and the skepticism and the non-knowing, because he's going to be smart enough to figure it out.


Unless, of course, it's worse than I think, and the plan is to cut down on the number of boys making it to college.


^*This was a major preoccupation of feminists who studied film back in the day. Males were associated with narrative movement; females were spectacle that stopped narrative. Females were 'theorized' as almost a counter-narrative force. This probably sounds ludicrous in the present context, but it's probably true, at least of 1940s film noir...The classic essay on this subject was Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema, which I haven't read in years.

---

LatticeMultiplicationWithCarrying 22 Oct 2005 - 16:31 CatherineJohnson






This explanation at Math Forum is the clearest I've seen. Perfect.


I'm too tired to think it through right now, but I'm not so sure the final point is right.....

'Doctor Mason,' at Math Forum, says:

Multiplication really takes three steps: multiply, carry, add. The method we typically use does the multiply and carry steps together. The lattice method does all three steps separately, so it's really easier! Centuries ago, the Germans had a method for doing all three steps at once. That method takes a lot of concentration!

But I think the method I left in one of the Comments threads also separates the 3 steps.

Doesn't it?


I'm going to keep an eye out for Dr. Mason.

---

FourthGradeMathEnrichment 17 Nov 2005 - 01:15 CatherineJohnson

The fourth grade math enrichment program is meant to complement and enhance the distict's new mathematics program, Math Trailblazers. It is a flexible, "push in" model that allows small groups of children the opportunity to explore the previously learned concepts in greater depth.

Most recently, all of the fourth graders constructed runways for various types of airplanes. The focus of the activity was to find the perimeter of different sized runways built with square tiles, noting patterns found during the process. As an enrichment activity, students built runways with shapes other than squares, such as triangles, pentagons and hexagons. Then, we discussed patterns and "function rules" that were devised from shape. With the discovery of each shape's function rule, we could calculate the perimeter of any number of blocks arranged in a line, without having to build the runway.

The math enrichment program can also extend any topic being taught in class. As fourth graders continue to explore our Hindu-Arabic number system with base ten blocks, enrichment activities will focus on other number systems such as the Roman numeral system. By studying the rules and symbols of other number systems, the students can compare and contrast the similarities, differences, pros and cons of our current number system.

As with Math Trailblazers, all enrichment activities align with NCTM and New York state mathematical standards appropriate for grade four. In addition, the children are often encouraged to show their work and explain their thought processes in complete sentences as they will be expected to do on the upcoming state test in March.

think and discuss


Our Hindu-Arabic number system, pros and cons

Hindu-Arabic number system
pros             cons



Roman numeral system
pros             cons











meanwhile, back in Singapore

11.
David spent 2/5 of his money on a story book.
The storybook cost $20.
How much money did he have at first?

source:
Primary Mathematics 4A Textbook, p. 67



update
A lot of the Regulars (see Comments thread) think these activities are worthwhile.

This tells me I've done a poor job writing this post—and, in fact, thinking it through in the first place.

Thanks to all of you, I'm clearer now.

Here's where I am:

• First of all, it pains me that, apparently, it's only the 'enrichment kids' who are learning about the Roman numeral system and about irregularly-shaped figures. Saxon Math teaches these subjects to all children, as does Singapore Math.

• Second, having now spoken to the mother of a mathematically gifted child struggling with TRAILBLAZERS in 2nd grade, I'm finding myself drawn to the issue of what exactly my school district is doing for these kids. These are very brainy children; I know, because I have them in my Singapore Math class. I do not see or hear evidence of a commitment, in our district, to serve the needs of gifted children as we serve the needs of other children. The reason these children are having 'push-in' enrichment is that our district is philosophically opposed to allowing high-achieving and gifted children to move ahead in the curriculum. So now we're spending money on 'Math Differentiation' specialists to help teachers teach math to below-average, averge, high-achieving, and mathematically gifted and talented kids all in the same time and place. The decision to end tracking was made in a hierarchical, top-down fashion, and imposed upon protesting parents.

• Third, I'm highly skeptical of the use of manipulatives at this age. First of all, we do have some reasonably good research on the subject of manipulatives, which shows—counterintuitively—that manipulatives work for middle school kids, but not for elementary school children. Manipulatives may impede learning in earlier years. (see posts here and here) But leaving aside the handful of studies we have, what bothers me is that all of these kids are bright. Their math skills are strong; they're good readers; they have smart, dedicated parents to help with homework. These children, I believe, can be using the abstract symbols of mathmatics to reason and learn.

• Finally, I simply loathe the tone of this document. I know that's harsh, but that's the writer in me. The fourth grade math enrichment program is meant to complement and enhance the distict's new mathematics program, Math Trailblazers. This is spin, and, reading it, I feel my blood rise. When a document like this comes home in the backpack, I am not being treated with respect. I am being public relationed, in Carolyn's memorable phrase.

---

ForgivingDivisionIsEasier 10 Oct 2006 - 02:33 CatherineJohnson



TRAILBLAZERS' rationale for replacing the long division algorithm with forgiving division:

Given the vast amount of time and the frustration involved in learning the long division algorithm traditionally taught in the United States, we instead use what we call the “forgiving method.” Sometimes it is referred to as the “subtraction method.” While this method may seem new, written record of it appears in a book published in 1729 while the first record of the traditional method appears in a publication dating from 1491 (Hazekamp, 1978). As with the traditional method, the forgiving method requires students to estimate quotients. The forgiving method is different in two ways. First, the student starts by estimating the entire quotient instead of the first digit. Secondly, if the estimate is too small, the student can continue with the procedure. This greatly alleviates the frustration of having to erase, and to some extent, allows one to get around a forgotten multiplication fact. (page 145, grade 4)

[snip]

Research has shown that low-ability students show better retention and understanding when taught division with this method and become better estimators of quotients. Students who were taught the forgiving method were better at solving unfamiliar problems and were better able to explain the meaning of the steps (van Engen and Gibb, 1956). Another study found that students who were taught both the forgiving and traditional methods did not confuse the methods and that the total amount of time needed to learn both was the same as the amount of time needed to learn one of the methods (Scott, 1963). Understanding rote procedures enables students to perform mathematical tasks with confidence and meaning. When children understand the mathematics they do, they come to believe that mathematics makes sense, and they are better able to think and reason flexibly. (page 146, grade 5)

[snip]

In this unit, an alternative division method is presented, rather than the one traditionally used in the United States. This method, which we call the forgiving division method, does not require that the greatest quotient be found at each step, eliminating the frequent erasing encountered with the standard algorithm. Research shows that students who are taught the forgiving division method are better at solving unfamiliar problems and are better able to explain the meaning of the steps in the method than those taught the traditional method (van Engen and Gibb, 1956). The forgiving division method also gives students the opportunity to practice mental math. (page 166, grade 5)

source:
TRAILBLAZERS background, grades K - 5 (pdf file)
page 167

We have quite a lot going on here.

First of all, we have an explicit statement that TRAILBLAZERS content is geared toward low-ability students. Not high-ability, not average-ability. Low-ability.

Do parents know this?

Second, we have an explicit statement that the authors of TRAILBLAZERS have opted to replace the standard algorithm with the forgiving version because the standard algorithm takes too long too teach ("a vast amount of time") and is too hard ("the frustration involved").

These observations strike me as correct. From what I gather, it does take quite a lot of time & frustration to teach the standard algorithm, although I question how much frustration would be involved using Singapore Math, Saxon Math, or Direct Instruction.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the standard of diminishing returns has not been applied to activities like Antopolis.

Thirdly, and mystifyingly, we have the inevitable Research Shows passage in which we are assured that in fact it takes no more time to teach forgiving division and long division than to teach either one on its own. That strikes me as unlikely, regardless of what 'research' does or does not show. Under normal circumstances, learning two things takes more time than learning just one. But, supposing the research is right, the obvious question is: Then why aren't you doing it? If it takes no more time to learn both algorithms, and if it's a good idea to learn both algorithms, then—hey! Teach both algorithms!

(For me it almost certainly would have been helpful to have studied both algorithms, though it would not have been helpful to practice both to mastery.)






question

I could probably think my way through this one, but in the interests of efficiency I'll ask you.

Can you do decimal division using forgiving division?

I'm not instantly seeing how that would work....


update

The answer is no. You can't do decimal division using forgiving division. See Comments thread.

Which means you can't use forgiving division to convert a fraction to a decimal. The Trailblazers grade 5 Student Guide tells children to use their calculators to accomplish this task.


wit and wisdom

This is funny.

TRAILBLAZERS grade 4 has a lesson called, "Oh, No! My Calculator is Broken."

This is Lesson 3 in Unit 7, Patterns in Multiplication.

The Key Content in "Oh, No! My Calculator is Broken" is:

• Recognizing that there are many strategies for doing simple multiplication problems
• Using efficient strategies to do multiplication problems involving the last six facts
• Using the calculator efficiently in problem solving
• Communication problem-solving strategies

I'm wondering how you use a broken calculator efficiently in problem solving.


why long division?

Milgram & Klein links:

• Why Long Division? speech by James Milgram, Stanford University
  
• The Role of Long Division in the K-12 Curriculum
  by David Klein, Department of Mathematics California State University, Northridge and R. James Milgram, Department of Mathematics, Stanford University
  

---

TrailblazersAndTheAlgorithms 29 Nov 2005 - 14:17 CatherineJohnson



I talked to a friend whose son is in second grade. He's a brainy kid who loves math, but he can't use the addition algorithm—because it hasn't been taught, apparently. If he's adding numbers smaller than 20, he counts on his fingers and toes. If the numbers are larger than 20, say 12 + 19, he draws 12 circles, then 19 circles, and finally counts them. Same process for subtraction, only in reverse. 63 - 19 means drawing 63 circles, then crossing out 19 of them.

The kids have the triangular flash cards that portray number families, and her son is working on flashcards with numbers 1 - 10. A friend of hers whose child is in 3rd grade told her those children are working on the exact same cards.

Adding and subtracting numbers 1 through 10. In third grade.


what the people who wrote TRAILBLAZERS have to say about this

Our approach is based on educational research and is supported by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000). It is characterized by the following:

• Emphasis on problem solving. Students will learn the basic facts if they are encouraged to use a problem-solving approach. Students can invent their own strategies, learn from their peers, or learn from the teacher through class discussions. Students will discover the need to learn the facts as they encounter them in labs, activities, and games.

• De-emphasis of rote work. Students learn their math facts, but we de-emphasize the use of rote memorization and in first grade we do not administer timed tests. These can produce an undesirable result—students perceive that doing math is memorizing facts and rules which “you either get or you don’t.” Instead, students should feel confident that they can find answers through the use of strategies they understand.

Throughout first grade the focus remains on the use of strategies that are meaningful to students. Beginning in Unit 11, a systematic organization of the math facts is introduced via the Daily Practice and Problems. Facts are grouped together in ways that may help students think of them in a more efficient manner. However, students are still free to solve the problems using whatever strategies they wish. By the end of second grade, students in Math Trailblazers are expected to demonstrate fluency with the addition and subtraction facts. The first grade curriculum enables them to build to this fluency through experience with and understanding of the concepts of addition and subtraction.

This passage illustrates the difference between 'research' and 'field-testing.'

TRAILBLAZERS is now being used in the field, here in Irvington.

Do we see children demonstrating fluency with the addition and subtraction facts by the end of 2nd grade?

I don't know the answer to that question. From what I hear, it doesn't sound like it.

What I'd like to know is: does anyone have an answer to this question?


the kindness of strangers

My least-favorite reform-math slogan:

• Facts will not act as gatekeepers. Students are not prevented from learning more complex mathematics based on their fluency with the math facts.

All children of normal intelligence can learn math facts. No doubt many children with mild mental retardation can learn math facts as well.

A responsible educator figures out how to teach math facts at the earliest possible age, and makes sure all children have learned.


source: TIMS Tutor grades 1 - 5 (pdf file)

---

TrailblazersParentLetterOnFractions 27 Nov 2005 - 15:30 CatherineJohnson



I've mentioned before that when a school district purchases the TRAILBLAZERS curriculum, it also purchases a complete package of parent letters to be sent home in the backpack at the beginning of each unit.

Here's how the fifth grade letter on fractions introduces the subject:

Children first learn about fractions from listening to adult conversation: “I’ll be there in a half hour,” or “The recipe calls for 2/3 cup of sugar.” As children’s experiences with fractions grow, they begin to use the language of fractions in their lives. “You can have half of my sandwich,” or “I need half a dollar.” However, many times a child’s understanding of fractions is not complete.

I'll say.


Math TRAILBLAZERS draws to a close

The TRAILBLAZERS curriculum ends with 5th grade. Here is the Parent Letter for Unit 12, the last unit in the series to teach—excuse me, to explore—fractions.




And with that, children are packed off to middle school.

They are now 10 years old. They have 'explored' equivalent fractions, mixed numbers, fraction addition and fraction multiplication. Whether they've practiced these operations to mastery is an open question. TRAILBLAZERS makes no mention of it one way or another. Unless the teacher has supplemented the curriculum with fraction worksheets and word problems, my guess is TRAILBLAZERS students have explored fractions and then moved on.

They don't know how to divide fractions; they don't know how to do decimal division. The only method presented to them for translating a fraction into a decimal is the calculator.

That's a lot of cans to be kicking down the road.


fractions, decimals and percents

---

SingaporeMathTopicMatrix 30 Nov 2005 - 16:47 CatherineJohnson



from the AIR report (pdf file)





I'm going to try to rustle up the equivalent chart from TRAILBLAZERS so we have a direct comparison.

This seems to say that in Singapore children are using all 4 algorithms in the first grade.





the TRAILBLAZERS track

Christopher told me yesterday that he learned how to subtract with regrouping in 2nd grade. 'It was hard,' he said. He learned the multiplication algorithm for the first time at the end of 2nd grade.

From what I can see, the TRAILBLAZERS track could be as much as a year slower than Irvington's old track, though it's hard to tell:

This unit extends students’ work with place value to four-digit numbers and helps them build an understanding of our number system, the base-ten place-value system. The activities in this unit lay the conceptual groundwork for performing multidigit addition and subtraction. Two-digit addition is reviewed. Three- and four-digit addition and subtraction algorithms are developed in Unit 6.

This is from Unit 3, Grade 4 (there are 20 units altogether).

Here's a passage from the Teacher Implementation Guide (pdf file):

In kindergarten and grade 1, students using MATH TRAILBLAZERS practice their counting skills. They learn to count past 100 by 1s, 2s, 5s, and 10s. They count forward and backward from any given number. They group objects for counting. Students use counting to solve addition and subtraction problems. They learn to write numbers up to and beyond 100. The 100 chart is introduced and used for a variety of purposes, including solving problems and studying patterns. Students partition, or break apart, numbers in several ways (25 = 20 + 5, 25 = 10 + 10 + 5, and so on). These activities help children become familiar with the structure of the number system. Beginning in kindergarten, a ten frame is frequently used as a visual organizer.

The first passage is intended for parents.

The second passage comes from the Teacher Implementation Guide.





subtraction algorithm mastered by the end of 4th grade

It's probably worth skimming through pages 5 through 7 in the Teacher Implementation Guide. This passage lays out the TRAILBLAZERS content, sequence, and timing for teaching the subtraction algorithm. Once again, it's difficult to nail down the exact 'scopt and sequence' TRAILBLAZERS follows:

Later in grade 2, systematic work begins on paper-and-pencil methods for subtracting two digit numbers. Students are asked to solve two-digit subtraction problems using their own methods and to record their solutions on paper. The class examines and discusses the various procedures that students devise. At this time, if no student introduces a standard subtraction algorithm, then the teacher does so, explaining that it is a subtraction method that many people use. The standard method is examined and discussed, just as the invented methods were. Students who do not have an effective method of their own are urged to adopt the standard method.

Problems that require borrowing are included from the beginning. Though this differs markedly from traditional approaches, we view it as important in developing a sound conception of subtraction algorithms. Giving children only multidigit problems that do not involve borrowing encourages the development of a rote and faulty algorithm that may not carry over into problems that require borrowing.

By the beginning of grade 3, students have a strong conceptual understanding of subtraction and significant experience devising procedures to solve subtraction problems with numbers up to 1000. They also have some experience with standard and invented paper-and-pencil algorithms for solving two-digit subtraction problems. In grade 3, this prior knowledge is extended in a systematic examination of paper-and-pencil methods for multidigit subtraction. This work begins with a series of multidigit subtraction problems that students solve in various ways. Many of these problems are set in a whimsical context, the TIMS Candy Company, a business that uses base-ten pieces to keep track of its production and sales. Other problems are based on student-collected data, such as a reading survey.

As in grade 2, the class discusses and compares the several methods students use to solve these problems. Again, any method that yields correct results is acceptable, but now a greater emphasis is given to methods that are efficient and compact. This work leads to a close examination of one particular subtraction algorithm. (See Figure 3.) Students solve several problems with base ten pieces and with this standard algorithm, making connections between actions with the manipulatives and steps in the algorithm. After a thorough analysis of the algorithm, including a comparison of the standard algorithm and other methods, students are given opportunities to practice the algorithm. Practice in paper-and-pencil methods for multidigit subtraction is distributed throughout grades 3 and 4.

TRAILBLAZERS delays mastery of the subtraction algorithm until the end of 4th grade.

This is certainly consistent with the constructivist belief that premature teaching of the algorithms closes off conceptual understanding.





TRAILBLAZERS whole number operations scope and sequence

What they've done here is to use the idea of a math curriculum based in problem-solving to justify not teaching the algorithms.

All of the problems being solved in these first years are of the type:

"How do I add, subtract, multiply, and divide without knowing any algorithms?"

This is not remotely the case in the Singapore series.

Like TRAILBLAZERS, PRIMARY MATHEMATICS is a problem-based curriculum.

But in PRIMARY MATHEMATICS children use the standard algorithms to solve problems. That's why, in Singapore, children can begin using bar models to solve simple algebra problems in the 3rd grade. The bar models help them perceive which algorithms to use in what sequence.

If you don't know the algorithms, a bar model's not going to do you much good.


Introduction to Math TRAILBLAZERS
TRAILBLAZERS (TIMS) Teacher Implementation Guide: Math Facts
TIMS Teacher Implementation Guide Laboratory Method


key words: scope and sequence Singapore Math Primary Mathematics Trailblazers

---

LatticeMultiplicationAtIllinoisLoop 08 Dec 2005 - 15:06 CatherineJohnson



Becky C reminded me that Illinois Loop has a scathing review of TRAILBLAZERS posted (I've read it at least twice & am due for another go at it).

When I clicked over to the site I found this:

"Yes, New-Math is multiplying, but I am sorry to report that too many children are not learning to multiply with New-Math. ... Multiplication is not all that difficult if one learns the multiplication tables and the logical, precise algorithm for the process. One day I was teaching traditional multiplication when one of the special education students wanted to show me the process she had been taught. Her problem even shocked me, and luckily I had my camera with me.

source:
New Math Multiples by Linda Schrock Taylor



For some reason I've come to love images of lattice multiplication. I'm forming a collection. Any minute now I'll be bugging J.D., Doug, Dan, and perhaps Carolyn, too, to make me one of my very own!

(Just kidding. I do love looking at them, though.)

---

WayneBishopReviewOfTrailblazers 01 Dec 2005 - 22:20 CatherineJohnson




review of Math TRAILBLAZERS, under consideration for California state adoption

AB 2519 Content Review Panel
REPORT WRITING TEMPLATE
MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS

Name of Publisher: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Name of Program: Math Trailblazers
Identification Number: None Indicated in Standards Map
Intended Grade Level(s): 4-5


conclusions:

• Based upon evaluation of its content only, this submission is NOT recommended for adoption as either a BASIC or a PARTIAL program.

• This submission is not comprehensive, and it does not contribute clearly and significantly to the course of study.

• This submission is not based upon the fundamental skills required by mathematics, including, but not limited to, basic computational skills.

• This submission does not provide for basic skills instruction that is systematic and explicit.

• This submission does not enable instruction in almost all (if not all) of the individual standards for the intended grade level(s) or discipline(s), either in whole or in one or more of the subject area(s) or discipline(s) listed above, in a cohesive, clear, systematic, and significant fashion.

• This submission is not aligned with the standards for the intended grade level(s) or discipline(s), meaning that (1) it does not enable successful instruction in the individual standards it covers, (2) it includes something fundamentally contrary to the standards, or (3) some content extraneous to instruction in the standards does detract from the ability of teachers to teach readily and students to learn thoroughly the content specified in the standards.

• This submission is not factually accurate and the inaccuracies cannot reasonably be corrected.

• To the extent this submission incorporates principles of instruction that are not reflective of current and confirmed experimental research, the bases of those principles are either not appropriately identified or are misleadingly presented as experimental research.

• This submission is not adequate in its coverage.

other comments

This submission falls far short of the standards for the grades at which it was submitted. It should not seriously be entertained as a candidate for these grades.

AB 2519 Content Review Panel
REPORT WRITING TEMPLATE
MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS


notes and citations

This submission continues to survive in spite of the existence of experimental research that it is not effective. The student books, evident from looking at the teachers' guides, are really a set of separate units that were widely distributed under the name TIMS, a curriculum project out of the University of Illinois at Chicago. More than ten years ago, this reviewer heard the lead author discuss the concept and curriculum which had already been class tested for several years. In response to a question from the audience about student performance, he admitted that student performance in mathematics "had not gone up", which many of us interpreted as had, in fact, gone down. He assured us that the understanding of mathematics did go up with his curriculum but did not tell us how that had been determined. He also reassured us that the understanding of science, another goal of this integrated curriculum, did increase. No data was provided for either mathematics or science and the science conclusion should be considered s