Learning math is all about details and being exact. This is a difficult thing for kids to learn. Using a calculator or a computer doesn't eliminate this need. (As I have said before, calculators and computers should make math class more difficult, not easier.)

There is no easy path to success in math. It requires time, hard work and lots of drill and kill practice. If the developers of fuzzy math think they have found an easy, low practice way to math success, then they deserve a nobel prize. (I won't hold my breath.)

-- SteveH - 07 Dec 2005

"Steve & Ken will be glad to hear this"

But Mike in Texas won't!

-- VerghisKoshi - 07 Dec 2005

Steve:

There is no Nobel prize in math. ;)

-- PaulMiller - 07 Dec 2005

"There is no Nobel prize in math."

I know. I was thinking that the best fit would be economics. They would show that less work produces more results.

-- SteveH - 07 Dec 2005

But Mike in Texas won't!

Nothing fazes MiT. He thinks that everything is political.

-- SteveH - 07 Dec 2005

"To err is human; to really screw things up takes a computer."

I'd forgotten that!

That's perfect; it's exactly right. We all know in some vague kind of way that You Can't Turn Math Over To Calculators.

But it's hard to explain succinctly to parents & administrators who are excited about Everyday Math.

That saying puts it across.

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

It's like setting everybody loose on the first day of shop class and saying "Here, play around with these power tools!

I love it!

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

Learning math is all about details and being exact. This is a difficult thing for kids to learn.

This is an important point.

I see this with Christopher, who will get the answer 'right,' and say I just forgot the minus sign.

To Christopher, the minus sign is a mere detail.

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

As I have said before, calculators and computers should make math class more difficult, not easier.

I haven't managed to notice you saying this!

If you feel like writing more, please do.

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

MiT is immune to reason and empirical evidence. He parrots apologist talking points, will outright ignore any evidence you present that contradicts his worldview, and shifts his arguments when he's losing the debate.

-- KDeRosa - 07 Dec 2005

an easy, low practice way to math success

Frankly, I don't think there's an easy, low-practice way to success in any activity.

I taught knitting for two years in the after-school program. (Strangely, the administration did not feel called-upon to formulate a whole new policy to prevent my continuing to teach knitting in the after-school program.)

Knitting takes practice. Knitting is also relatively hard to learn when you're brand new to the craft.

It takes work, and it's not fun when you're just starting.

I assume the expression 'all thumbs' comes from the crafts people have taught younger generations for hundreds and thousands of years.

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

Who is Mike in Texas?

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

"Who is Mike in Texas?"

You've been missing a lot of fun. Many of us (Ken, one or more of the Steves, Allen, and I have come up against Mike on the field of battle, only to retire hurt (like in cricket) with severe logical concussions.

For example, he's always saying that public schools need more money to do their jobs well; but then he seized on the TIMSS 2003 4th-grade results to argue that the US students are being taught too much, and so by extension are too well educated.

Here's a transcript of a recent discussion between Ken and Mike in Texas: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/jennyd/113141060612668903/

-- VerghisKoshi - 07 Dec 2005

hoo boy

I'll treat myself later on—

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

I'll have to find and post Engelmann's line on whether the schools need more money.

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

Jay Greene has a good article on school spending. And, his new book, Education Myths goes on to say that research shows that it takes less than $7,000 to fully fund an effective classroom and that almost every school has well over this amount available to it.

-- KDeRosa - 07 Dec 2005

Money grafs:

Education spending per pupil has been climbing steeply for 60 years. In 1945--46, public primary and secondary schools spent $1,214 per pupil in inflation-adjusted 2001 dollars. Ten years later, that figure had roughly doubled to $2,345. It roughly doubled again in another 16 years, reaching $4,479 in 1971--72. And 30 years later, it had doubled a third time, climbing to $8,745 in 2001--02.

It's difficult for us to know what the exact effects of this increase in spending were before the 1970s because there were no standardized tests given to truly representative samples of students at that time. This leaves us with no reliable way to gauge how the performance of the school system responded as new dollars came flowing in.

[snip]

The results of these exams are startling. During a period when per-pupil education spending doubled from $4,479 to $8,745, student performance has been flat. Twelfth-grade test scores, which represent the final results of the K-12 education system, haven't budged. The average reading score was 285 in 1971 and 288 in 1999 (the latest year from which comparison-compatible scores are available); the average math score was 304 in 1973 and 308 in 1999; and the average science score was 290 in 1977 and 295 in 1999. On a scale of 500 points, these are trivial differences.

High school graduation rates, the other major indicator of the school system's final outcomes, are also flat. In 1971--72, high school graduates made up 76 percent of the 17-year-old population (the age-group that is the field's standard of comparison), while in 1999--2000 they made up 70 percent. Early estimates for 2000--01 and 2001--02 indicate that the rate may have gone back up to 72 percent. That leaves it essentially unchanged from the level it had been at 30 years earlier.

-- KDeRosa - 07 Dec 2005

It's difficult for us to know what the exact effects of this increase in spending were before the 1970s because there were no standardized tests given to truly representative samples of students at that time.

Isn't that amazing? Before 1970, no one kept comprehensive records on how well students were performing. It wasn't the Feds got into the game (most likely unconstitutionally, but who was going to complain by then) that someone decided to keep track of what kids were learning.

Does anyone know any other busines or profession (still in existence) that operates like this?

-- KDeRosa - 07 Dec 2005

California spends considerably more per pupil than private schools in the Bay Area, arguably one of the most expensive places in the country.

And yet the results are dismal, and we're always being told that they need more money.

Sources? The non-partisan California Legislative Analyst's Office website, though the data is well hidden.

-- VerghisKoshi - 07 Dec 2005

wow, Ken thanks

I'm now keeping a list of all the Comments I need to get pulled up front, so THIS WILL BE THERE

I'll have to get Greene's book, too

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

Isn't that amazing? Before 1970, no one kept comprehensive records on how well students were performing. It wasn't the Feds got into the game (most likely unconstitutionally, but who was going to complain by then) that someone decided to keep track of what kids were learning.

It really is staggering.

Here's another one: no one anywhere in this country is keeping records on the number of high school graduates from a particular high school who graduate from college.

A couple of years back there was a BIG study done showing that the single factor most predictive ('predictive' meaning causative as well as associated) of college graduation was rigor of the high school curriculum.

We have no stats. None.

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

Ed, who has been ambivalent about standardized tests since his experience working on the CA history/social science frameworks (where they ditched a high-quality test due to political pressure) said just yesterday that he's seeing the value for the first time, here in Christopher's situation.

In 4th and 5th grade, Christopher had '4s' in math & in ELA.

Only about 10% of the kids in his grade scored 4s on both last spring.

Thanks to these scores we're well-armed to tell the school that if Christopher is flunking tests on subject and predicate that's a problem with the school, not the child.

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

Here's another one: no one anywhere in this country is keeping records on the number of high school graduates from a particular high school who graduate from college.

Nor are they keeping track of the percentage of kids from a particular school go on to college and are in need of remediation.

I'll bet the remediation factor correlates highly with the graduation factor. I especially like the remediation factor because it clearly indicates when a school has not done its job properly in preparing kids for college level work. plus, the remediation rate will be known about three months after the seniot graduation so it can be reported quickly.

Schools should be required to post this remediation rate right out front like factories post their "X days without an accident" stats.

-- KDeRosa - 07 Dec 2005

Nor are they keeping track of the percentage of kids from a particular school go on to college and are in need of remediation.

Hadn't thought of that.

Now THAT is ridiculous.

I can see where it gets challenging to keep track of college graduation.

But entering-college-needing-remediation; that's a piece of cake.

Ridiculous.

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

I especially like the remediation factor because it clearly indicates when a school has not done its job properly in preparing kids for college level work.

Remediation factor is excellent.

(imo)

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

Schools should be required to post this remediation rate right out front like factories post their "X days without an accident" stats.

yup

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 Dec 2005

longdivision steveleinwand

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 Sep 2006