Merry Christmas to All

Can We Just Recycle?

Well, the poll is closed and it appears that there are no recounts needed or hanging chads to reconsider.  Despite the fact that the blog tool truncates the percentages, the results are as follows:

What do you think of Everyday Math:

13% - Fine with me - it gives my child all the tools to succeed
8%   - I like it, but I have some minor concerns
20% - I don't like it, but there are some good parts
59% - Terrible - Anyone interested in a book burning

Some givens:

1.    The survey was unscientific
2.    Preaching to the choir was definitely involved
3.    Turnout was about as high as an off year primary day (39 votes)

Still, four out of five participants did not like it, and three quarters of those thought it was terrible (give the data to your sixth grader and see if they can convert the percentages to round figures to fractions and then fractions of fractions).  

Think the Board of Education should conduct such a survey across the district?  It has been done in other districts, and I saw one which asked about how many parents tutored at home or paid for tutoring.

One "great" thing about EDM is that most of it gets recycled every year, since the workbooks are consumable.  I can't think of any particular use for the pages after they have been used - you can't use them to teach someone else math, especially since the books didn't teach them a whole lot to begin with.

Report from the Board of Education Meeting

I attended the Board of Education meeting last evening.  I presented the summary below, referencing the Connecticut State Department of Education document previously discussed.

The board was listening, and the chairwoman referred to me by name (almost pronounced it correctly) when discussing the upcoming Board Work Session (5 Jan 2012) to review the 2011-2012 Math Monitoring Report covering the 2010-2011 school year.   Another board member (Peter Sherr) indicated that he had been “hearing from the community” and was looking for a “full-throated discussion about math, the math curriculum.”  It should be an interesting discussion.

If you are not familiar with the Monitoring Reports, they are the main way that the administration communicates about the successes and issues in the area of Mathematics.  The reports can be found on the BoE Policy page:

http://gsdpublicdash.com/

although the 2010-2011 Math report does not appear to have been posted. 

Interestingly, I cannot find a policy on how to conduct a curriculum review.  Hmmm.

_______________________

Board of Education Meeting Presentation

22 December 2011

“Why are we not accelerating the Math Program Review (in light of the new Common Core standards)?”  At least one Board member raised this question at your last meeting.

From Those Wonderful Folks Who Brought You….Everyday Math

The Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education (“CEMSE”), at The University of Chicago, proudly claims to be the “home of the authors of Everyday Mathematics.”  The CEMSE has a bone to pick with the SMARTER Balanced Achievement Consortium (“SBAC”), the group that is developing the standardized test that Connecticut will use starting in 2015.  In reviewing the draft specifications for the “Summative Assessment” (I guess standardized test is too easy to say), they state that

“If SBAC’s test for Grades 3-6 reflect the (proposed priorities), there is a danger that the implemented curriculum will fail to prepare students for college and careers in a world in which routine arithmetic calculations are routinely carried out by machines.”

Now I’ve read that about ten times, and the my translation is that “because we developed a curriculum that teaches kids to use calculators instead of learning the basic facts, they are now going to fail because they can’t use calculators.”  I am open to other translations.  Any other thoughts out there about what this means?

By the way, on their website, Everyday Math is “used in over 220,000 classrooms by about 4.3 million students.”  These guys just aren’t very consistent.

http://cemse.uchicago.edu/

Brian BTN

It Gets Better - A Look Behind the Numbers

I don’t call my blog By the Numbers for nothin’.  If the administration can justify a recommendation to not do a math curriculum review because, in part, only 8% of the standards are new and only “some” of the standards need to be adjusted for grade level, then those numbers need to be examined. 

I found the source document for the administration’s reply.  And they quoted it correctly, and in some cases verbatim.  But let’s look at what they failed to include in their reply. 

There's a Meetin' Here Tonight - Board of Education Meeting

The Greenwich Public Schools Board of Education will meet on Thursday 22 December at 7:00 PM at the High School to continue consideration of the budget.  I will be there to push for the desperately needed math curriculum review.  Come one, come all to support the push for better mathematics education in our schools.

Brian BTN

GPS Administration Recommendation: No Math Review Until 2014

At the 8 December Board of Education budget review session, the administration provided written responses to questions regarding the budget, posed by Board members prior to the meeting.  According to the agenda document (see page 18, question 31),

http://www.greenwichschools.org/uploaded/district/departments/business_services/budget_12-13/2012-13_Budget_Q&A_II_120811.pdf

at least one of the Board members asked,” Why are we not accelerating the Math Program Review (in light of the new CCSS)?” 

Our thanks go out to the Board member(s) who raised this question. 

Secret of Everyday Math Revealed

If Everyday Math can claim any success, I think I may have found the reason.  While looking around the EDM website, I found this quote on their main page:

“It is currently being used in over 185,000 classrooms by almost 3,000,000 students.”

http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/about/

Using long division (no calculators were harmed in the writing of this post), the average class size is a miraculous 16.22 students.  I guess with that size of class, the teacher can pay individual attention to the needs of each student to help them overcome the EDM program.  Tell that to the NYC math teachers.

As I looked further around the site, I found this quote:

“Over 2.8 million students in 175,000 classrooms are currently using Everyday Mathematics.”

http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/educators/

An even better 16.0 students per class, on the page used to advertise to educators.  Great!

So, class, what did we learn?  What everyone learns in math.  Check your answers.  Obviously no one at Everyday Math checked the class size, probably because they couldn’t do long division and they didn’t have a calculator. 

What else did we learn?  That Everyday Math has a problem with consistency.  It appears likely that EDM put up these pages at two different times.  Let us hope that the second set of numbers is more recent than the first (and that the usage trend is DOWN).

Is this the program you want for your children?

Brian BTN

I Have Become My Mother

When I was in elementary school about 45 years ago, my mother would visit my classroom once or twice a year.  As far as I know, she never told anyone she was coming (especially me).  Since I was a perfect kid (!?), she obviously did not come because of behavior problems.  She just sat there and observed. 

Yesterday, I went and visited my daughter’s math class. 

I would encourage all parents to take an hour or two to visit their child or children’s classes, particularly while they are in elementary school (when it is a distraction and not an embarrassment).  Just sit and watch.  I guarantee it will be interesting, and most likely very different than what you remember from school.  

Given totally appropriate concerns on the part of the school, you have to make arrangements prior to a visit. 

I want to thank the Riverside School Principal, Assistant Principal, and my daughter’s teacher for making me feel welcome.

Brian BTN

Shameful

Shameful – We Just Are Not Making Progress

SHAMEFUL – that is what the Connecticut State Education Commissioner, Stefan Pryor, call the results of Connecticut students on the 2011 NAEP test:

"In a state like ours they (the results, not the students – my clarification) are shameful and we must address it."

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/State-ed-commish-calls-test-results-shameful-2248600.php#ixzz1gLacHl7N

Fourth Grade Math Results

YEAR                AVG SCORE    % At/Above
                                                       Proficient           

MATHEMATICS
2003	241		41*
2005	242		42
2007	243		45
2009	245		46
2011                    242		45

What does this mean?  No improvement in scores since 2000.  No improvement in students at or above Proficient since 2003.  And where Connecticut used to score well versus the rest of the nation, Connecticut’s results on this test and the other parts of the NAEP are now not statistically different than the national average for public schools. 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2011/2012451CT4.pdf

In case you don’t want to click on the link, let me relay some more bad news:

 In 2011, Black students had an average score that was 33 points lower than White students. This performance gap was not significantly different from that in 1992 (40 points).

In 2011, Hispanic students had an average score that was 31 points lower than White students. This performance gap was not significantly different from that in 1992 (34 points).

In 2011, students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch, an indicator of low family income, had an average score that was 31 points lower than students who were not eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch. This performance gap was not significantly different from that in 1996 (33 points).

One bit of good news:

In 2011, male students in Connecticut had an average score that was not significantly different from female students.

As my daughter use to say: Why, why, why, why, why?

1.    Low standards – we’ve talked about that

2.    Poor priorities - ditto

3.    Bad curriculum

Bad curriculum?  Everywhere?  I spoke with administrators and reviewed websites from the top five districts (Newtown, Madison, Avon, Simsbury, Monroe) for 2011 performance on the 3rd-5^th grade CMT for math in the same demographic category as Greenwich (DRG-B), and four other Fairfield County districts (New Canaan, Wilton, Darien, Westport).  All use a reform math program, such as Everyday Math, TERC Investigations, and Growing with Math (except Madison, which now uses a homegrown curriculum, but previously used Growing with Math).

So can we blame everything on reform math programs?  I wish it were that simple.  We can probably attribute a good share of the problem of flat scores to these programs.  Maybe these programs can only get us so far in educating (and I use that word advisedly in relation to these programs) our children.  Is it time for something new?  Or maybe it is time for something old(er)?

Brian BTN

We Are Not Alone

Take strength from the fact that there are many, many others out there who are agitating for the end of “reform math.”  Click on the link below from the NYCHOLD (Honest Open Logical Decisions on Mathematics Education Reform) website, which lists other sites.  Some of these sites are inactive (both CT sites no longer appear to be active).  Try to find a list of sites supporting Everyday Math and its reform math companions!

http://www.nychold.com/#activism

Brian BTN

Don't Just Take My Word for It!

Do you think I am alone in rebelling against Everyday Math?  Fat chance.  There are many groups that have faced the same situation we are in (parents who have had EDM foisted on their children and have pushed back).  There are university mathematics (not education) professors who have seen the results of the education provided (or, more aptly, not provided) by Everyday Math and its “reform math” cousins, and have turned their resources to raising the alarm.  And there are organized groups of concerned citizens (parents, researchers, teachers and professors) who have banned together to publicize the damage being done by these math programs. 

If you look on the right under the Links of Interest, you will see a collection of links to websites for these various groups.  Don’t just take my word for it; check out what other parents and college professors are saying about the real results of long term exposure to Everyday Math and other such programs.  Whether you call it fuzzy math, or reform math, or constructivist math, these programs are not providing our students with the mathematics education they need. 

WARNING: reading some of these papers and studies can cause you to get very agitated.  However, you will come to understand more fully the wide spread trouble these programs are causing.

Brian BTN

Comments Welcome

Hey, I'm new at this.  I just changed the default setting, so that anyone can comment now.  You do not need to sign in, or have a Google account, or any other onerous set up.  So feel free to give me feedback.  When it asks for a profile, just click on "Anonymous."  If you want to identify yourself with a clever name, then feel free to set up an account on any of the options under profile.

Brian BTN

Everyday Math Survey

Keep those votes coming in.  How do you really feel about Everyday Math?

Brian BTN

Has Everyday Math Been Good to You?

As I mentioned earlier, I want to look at the results of the education our students are receiving.  Standardized tests provide one window, but when those tests are designed to match the curriculum recommendations of the NCTM, all you get is validation that the students are doing “better” on the junk they are being made to learn.  Granted, the tests are (relatively) easy to give and score and interpret, but do they really point to how well we are preparing our students? 

Everyday Math has been around since the 1990’s, producing a whole generation of high school graduates and folks who went on to college and/or the work force.  EDM has only been in Greenwich schools since 2005, so we are only now (2010 and 2011 school years) seeing the first students going to middle school who have been using EDM for their entire elementary school careers.

How are our middle school students faring?  What are middle school math teachers saying? 

Does anyone out there have older experience with Everyday Math?  If so, how well did your math education prepare you for college and/or the work force?  Those are the results, more difficult to measure, which we need to look at. 

Brian BTN

So What Are We Trying to Do?

Dr. Sid asked me some good questions:

Q: What is my objective?

A: Two objectives:

1. Commence the K-12 curriculum review this year, so that we are not behind in 2014 when the new state standards impact the CT Mastery Test, and Greenwich's results dive, along with housing prices (longer term).  Our current curriculum is built around the old CT standard, which has our kids learning multiplication (6-9 times tables) in the fourth grade.  The new test will test that in the third grade, according to the standards.  And that is just one of the upgrades.

2. Get Everyday Math changed.  It is great that some parents (me included) are in a position to instruct our children each night to make up for Everyday Math’s deficiencies, but what about kids where both parents work, and/or don't speak English well, and/or can’t afford a tutor.  You may ask why I included speaking English well.  One administrator with whom I spoke (ex-New Canaan and now Wilton) said that Everyday Math was “language rich” program, which raises a question about how well Everyday Math works for those who are learning English or who come from homes were English is not the first language.  I want to ensure that every student gets the opportunity in school to learn math at least as well as I did.  My mom did not have the math skills to help me, and we couldn't afford a tutor.  My effort started out to protect my daughter, but there is a larger issue out there that we can't ignore. 

Q: Do I want to just ditch Everyday Math?

A: In a word, YES!  As one commentator said, “Everyday Math might be a good supplement but it's a lousy curriculum.”  Should our teachers be supplementing for the basics (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division)?  How consistently are they doing that across the district? If one teacher recognizes the issue, and one does not, is that fair to the latter’s students? The supplements my daughter had last year were the same bulk as the workbook and home work from Everyday Math, meaning her teacher supplemented about as much as the work in Everyday Math.  Does that make sense? 

Q: Am I recommending a specific substitute?

A:  If I start pushing for a specific alternative now, I would be guilty of the same fault as the person(s) who selected this program: they did not do a sufficient review.  I would prefer to get the Board of Education to agree to do a review, then ensure that it considers alternatives, including other "new math" programs, in a fair comparison.  I doubt if any of the new math programs will hold up, but it should be a comprehensive review.  Take a look at what was done by the Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District to select a new curriculum (they were – past tense – using Everyday Math).

K-6 Math Evaluation BOE Presentation 2-24-09

Q: Do I advocate allowing us our choice of curriculum?

A: One of my suggestions at the Board meeting was going to be to run two curricula, but I ran out of time and cut that sentence.  I doubt that the alternative will fly because of budget issues.  From a purely scientific (okay, geeky) point of view, I would love to see a side-by-side comparison.  And I would love to know how much Everyday Math costs every year (all those non-reusable workbooks).  Can anyone say FOIA?

Q: Is this change meant for our children (Dr. Sid’s child is the same age as mine), or is this a larger crusade?

A: One thing that we all have limited experience with is the skill level of our children’s teachers in teaching math.  Being generalist, it may or may not be a particular teacher’s strength. My daughter has been lucky so far in having very good teachers, but I would love to see some sort of meaningful math certification for elementary teachers, or separate math classes with specialist math teachers.  If we want to be serious about preparing our students for college and/or the work force, we have to provide the resources.  Greenwich downsized its support staff for math coaches in 2009 (not totally – I think there is some coaching in the lower performing schools), so at a minimum we need to bring those resources back.

Dr. Sid is betting that any change (“the system's ability to meaningfully and constructively reform itself in a short period of time”) will occur long after his/her child is out of elementary school.  That is why s/he is home schooling.  I am teaching at home too, but we need to think about all of our students.

Brian BTN

Everyday Math Survey

Look to your right and take the survey. Don't leave me out there not knowing! How do you really feel about Everyday Math?

Brian BTN

NAEP and NCTM and EDM – Part 1

So what are all these letters, and what do they mean, and how do they relate to each other?  Well, you know that EDM means Everyday Mathematics, the focus of our research and the target for removal from our school system.  From the previous posting, NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress.  Now we get introduced to the NCTM or the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 

From their website: “The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is a public voice of mathematics education supporting teachers to ensure equitable mathematics learning of the highest quality for all students through vision, leadership, professional development and research.”

http://www.nctm.org/about/default.aspx?id=166

In 1989, the NCTM published Curriculum and Evaluation Standards (usually called the NCTM Standards), which is credited or blamed, depending on your view, with setting off the latest round in the Math Wars.  The NCTM Standards were revised in 2000 with the publication of Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (usually referred to as PSSM).  This was followed in 2006 by Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence (aka, the Focal Points).

So what is the issue?  Standards are good, right?  And true, the NCTM Standards pushed most states to establish standards for their jurisdictions.  However, when standards are poorly written or when something is presented as a standard and is really something else, or curriculum developers interpret them poorly (or interpret them to fit their own needs and aims), do you know what you get?  POOR CURRICULUM!  And POOR PRIORITIES! 

To start, let us talk about priorities, i.e., how much time we spend on each topic.  When I was in elementary school (during the dark ages of the sixties), we had books called Arithmetic.  I guess the NCTM now covers this under the heading “Number and Operations.”  In fact, you would be hard pressed to find the word arithmetic in their standards documents.  I scanned the PSSM Executive Summary and found nary a mention of the word.  http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Math_Standards/12752_exec_pssm.pdf

So how much time does the NCTM suggest I spend on “Number (no “s”) and Operations?”  From the Executive Summary of PSSM (chart on page 4), I should spend about 30% of the time (between PreK and second grade), and about 26% of the time (between third and fifth grade).  Really, when I am learning to count and add and multiply, I only need to spend a third or less of my time! 

Where else should I be spending my time?  For preK to second grade, I should spend 8% of my time on algebra, 29% on geometry, 20% on measurement, and 13% on “Data Analysis and Probability.”  For third to fifth grade, I should spend 16% of my time on algebra, 25% on geometry, 20% on measurement, and 13% on “Data Analysis and Probability.” 

Data Analysis and Probability???  Now you know why your student is so good at making those bar charts!  Maybe they can figure the odds of the Giants winning this weekend?  I will predict there is a high probability that many of those students can’t multiply and divide at the end of fifth grade.

So have times changed?  Or have our standards changed?  Or are we trying to cram too much (too much superfluous material, to early) into too little time.  If I consider algebra to be arithmetic, I should (according to the NCTM) be spending only about 42% of my time on arithmetic between third and fifth grade. 

The chart on page eight from the link below shows one math professor’s analysis of how much time is spent on various topics in fifth grade according to various source documents.  When he was in fifth grade (1956), he spent about 85-90% of his time on arithmetic and the rest on everything else. 

http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/wsw.ppt (you may have to double click)

Source: website of W. Stephen Wilson, Professor of Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University, from Leading Minds K-12 Math Education Forum, April 24, 2008  http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/

Ah, no wonder I can’t add and subtract and multiply and divide!  I am only spending half as much time as my grandparents did, and about 60% of the time my competition in Singapore does (42%/70%).

As a check point, I did a similar study of my daughter’s fourth grade EDM home work book.  I got about 55% for time spent on arithmetic, 14% on data/ estimation/ statistics/ probability, and 31% geometry/measurement.

So maybe part of the problem is that we are not spending enough time on the basics.  Remember, if you want to teach other stuff, something has to get dropped.  So what if it is just basic arithmetic!  But the EDM Teacher’s Reference Manual Grades 1-3 says “Children need a mathematics curriculum that is rigorous and balanced and that: … Explores a broad mathematics spectrum, not just basic arithmetic…”

I am reminded of a line from a semi-famous movie that says “Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing.”  Just because the Everyday Math philosophy says our children can learn many things, does not mean they must learn many things at the cost of learning important things well.

Okay, you got me, it was Star Trek IV: The Undiscovered Country.

Up next: more alphabet soup.

Greenwich School District Rankings - Comments

KCAB:

Thank you for the best wishes; I am hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.

One suggestion I received was to push/challenge the Board of Education to conduct a survey to determine the usage of home tutoring or paid tutoring.  If the results are presented by elementary school, in Greenwich it would paint an interesting picture ( I am betting), in that certain schools’ students would have significant after school help, and certain schools’ students would have minimal help.  While not statistically provable, I also would wager that the correlation to the CMT would be quite positive.  There are probably a few things at work – the kids getting tutoring pushing up the scores (for which EDM will take credit), smart kids without tutoring going toward lower scores (the Race to the Middle) and losing interest, slower learners completely lost, and the great group in the middle, some of whom could be really great, just missing the boat.  Mix that in with changing tests and changing standards, and there is no way of telling if any progress is being made.

And thank you for pointing out the P20 groups.  I hope the 20 doesn’t indicate that it will take from preschool (P) to your twentieth year in school until you learn a useful amount of mathematics.  I hope that when the results are posted, they trigger a conversation around how “40% of our students can graduate from high school and still have to do remedial math before doing college level math!”  (Forty % is my guess) 

On the face of it, the P20 posting of results by high school will be useful data point tied to real results, not test results which are subject to question.  Real results like:

-       How well prepared are the students for algebra after they have done EDM for six years?

-       How well prepared are the students for the work world after graduating from high school?

-       How well prepared are the students for college math?

There have been several unscientific studies by college professors indicating the decline in performance of incoming college freshmen:

http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/devclue.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvSFunUjx0

Brian BTN

A Journey Through Everyday Math

Before I get to the next promised topic, a bit of a digression to take a dig at EDM.  For those parents who have made it to third grade (with their children, of course), the biggest complaint I hear is about the Lattice Method of Multiplication.  Never having used the Lattice Method for real calculations (although I have played with it a few times), the question I have is how can anyone say it is "very efficient and powerful", as the EDM Teacher's Reference Manual does?  So I did a little study.

If we look at the operations performed in the standard algorithm and Lattice Method, the Lattice always has more operations (defined below). If I can prove this (and I will), and it is very evident that it takes longer to draw the lattice as the problems becomes larger (moving from 3x3 digit multiplication to 4x4 to nxn), it therefore disproves the EDM Manual's assertion that "The authors have found that with practice, it is more efficient than standard multiplication for problems involving more than two digits in each factor." If there are more operations in the Lattice Method, AND you need to draw the lattice as opposed to just two lines in the standard algorithm, the Lattice Method has to take longer. I don't know how you define efficient, but I have taught my daughter that it means it takes less time (Dictionary - "producing effectively with a minimum of waste or effort "- and we all know what the "waste" is here).

This is not nitpicking, this is a direct attack on the poor quality of material in the teacher's manual, and is reflective of a cavalier attitude toward truth, accuracy and believability in EDM (more to come on that).

And so to the proof (for n x n lattice):
Operations involved:
1. multiplications
2. additions
3. carry in multiplication process
4. carry in addition process
5. writing multiplication results
6. writing addition results

There will always be equal values for multiplications (a nxn digit multiplication will always involve n-squared multiplications), carry in the addition process (there will always be 2(n-1) additions), and writing addition results (the answer will always have at most 2n digits).

For the other operations, the lattice requires 2n-squared (2 x n x n) additions, 2n-squared numbers to be written for multiplication results, and zero carrying in the multiplication process.

For the other operations, the standard algorithm requires (n(n+1)) + (n-1) + (n-2) + (n-3) + .... (n-n) additions, as well as the same for numbers to be written for multiplication results, and (n-1) squared for carrying in the multiplication process. I tried to simplify this but failed (should have paid attention in series class), but doing it by hand for 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5 showed that the lattice method used 2,3, and 4 more operations. When you go to higher n's (yes, I used a spreadsheet), you add three operations to the difference for each increase in n (so for the 6x6, the lattice uses 7 more operations; for 7x7 it uses 10, etc.),.

So, in reality, it is less efficient than the standard algorithm.  Don't you wish your children brought home a text book so you could see what the authors of EDM are telling your children about math? 

Can you believe EDM?  To alter a famous song title (Journey): Don't.  Stop Believing!

Brian BTN

What do standardized tests really mean?

What do standardized tests really mean?  Can we have every child receive a Proficient score on their standardize tests (Connecticut Mastery Test - "CMT"), and still not understand the math.  Let’s start with the concept that a Proficient score means you are proficient, which is defined by CT as:

 “Generally,…. students who perform at this level demonstrate adequate knowledge of grade-level content. These students demonstrate adequate conceptual understanding, computational skills and problem-solving skills, as well as an ability to solve complex and abstract mathematical problems. Typically, the solutions these students provide to math problems are adequate and include sufficient explanations.”

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0167.htm

Proficient is the middle range on the test, starting from Advanced to Goal to Proficient to Basic to Below Basic.  Goal is the score which Connecticut professes to desire of its students, so Proficient is less than what we want from our students.  On the 2011 CMT, about 85% of Connecticut third to fifth graders scored at or above Proficient; about 93.5% of Greenwich 3-5 graders did.  Pretty good, huh?

So where does that Proficient score on the CMT fit with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (“NAEP”), aka the “Nation’s Report Card?”  The NAEP is given to fourth, eighth and twelfth grade students.  The National Center for Education Statistics compared the rigor of the CMT and the NAEP.  For fourth grade students, it determined that a Proficient score on the CMT was equal to a Basic score on the NAEP (barely – CT’s score was 220, when 214 was the cutoff for Basic and 249 was the cutoff for Proficient on the NAEP).  For an eighth grade student, a Proficient score on the CMT was equal to a Below Basic score on the NAEP.  This information was for the 2007 NAEP and CMT tests. 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2010456.pdf

Interestingly, Connecticut lowered its standards between 2005 and 2007. 

The NAEP definition for Basic (at the fourth grade level) is:

“Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should show some evidence of understanding the mathematical concepts and procedures in the five NAEP content areas.

Fourth-graders performing at the Basic level should be able to estimate and use basic facts to perform simple computations with whole numbers, show some understanding of fractions and decimals, and solve some simple real-world problems in all NAEP content areas. Students at this level should be able to use—though not always accurately—four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes. Their written responses will often be minimal and presented without supporting information.”

So to answer my question: the CMT may call it Proficient, but it is very close to being not adequate. 

But wait, there’s more!  We can take some solace in the fact that the NAEP is a good and consistent measure of the progress (or lack thereof) we are making, right?  Not so fast. 

Next up: NAEP and NCTM and EDM (MOUSE)

Supplementing Your Child's Math Education

When parents perceive that the work being done by their children in school is not rigorous enough, by whatever measure, most parents look for ways to supplement the work.  At home here we have several decks of flashcards which we use to drill our daughter.  We have also printed off worksheets from the Internet for multiplication, addition, and subtraction practice (watch out, division is next!).  And we have books of word problems which she will delve into when she has nothing to do (which is seldom) or on car trips. 

One of the best resources we have found, which was recommended to us by a good friend, is Khan Academy. 

http://www.khanacademy.org/

This site has both practice sessions, as do many other sites.  The real gem are the videos which explain concepts like borrowing and carrying (or "trade first" and "regrouping" in Everyday Math - although there are slight differences), multi-digit addition and subtraction and many others.  They go into the "why", not just the "how."  Look in the Arithmetic and Developmental Math sections, but there are also sections for Algebra, Geometry, Calculus and up to Diff EQ. 

Side note: how do you remember to spell ARITHMETIC?  A rat in the house may eat the ice cream.  Third grade was a long time ago, but I still remember.

My daughter will often ask to watch a video before reading/bed time.  Music to any parents ears when the video is teaching them something. 

It is interesting (to me, at least, given my campaign to change/eliminate Everyday Math) that some of the techniques used in the well executed Khan Academy videos to explain how to do a procedure or algorithm are included in EDM.  Since there is no EDM text book, we have to assume the teacher is teaching it well, or the children are discovering it for themselves (?!?!).  Teaching these alternative algorithms can help your child understand, but they should be used as teaching tools, not an end in themselves as EDM preaches.  Teach the reasoning, the "why", then get back to the efficient standard algorithms (and don't ignore long division).

Next up: what do standardized tests mean?

Greenwich School District Rankings

Sunday's front page article in the Greenwich Time discussed where Greenwich Public Schools rank in the state of CT.  We all know what they say about statistics (lies, d- - - lies, statistics), so it would be easy to come out just about anywhere by being selective with what stats are used.

Whether you say we rank number one or number 48 or somewhere in between (note that the ConnCan high school ranking on the front page is probably incorrect, according to the actual article), results based on CMT math test scores for elementary students are troubling.  

Real estate buyers and sellers would compare Greenwich to Darien, New Caanan, Westport and a few others contained in the states District Reference Group A ("DRG-A").  From a demographic point of view, the state lumps Greenwich into DRG-B with Madison, Newtown, Avon, and 10+ others.  Numerically, Greenwich is twice the size of most of these districts, based on the number of students taking the CMT.  Does size matter? 

It is wrong to compare DRG-A schools to Greenwich, given the differences in the demographics.  Should we aspire to match or exceed these schools?  Absolutely.   

On the other hand, comparisions to DRG-B schools, regardless of size, is appropriate.  DRG-B schools should have a similar socioeconomic distribution of students, based on the variety of factors used by the state to determine the group (we can always argue about that criteria, too).  Therefore, Greenwich should have a similar percentage of students at or above goal compared to Madison et al.  Well?

Looking at raw data from the CT Dept. of Education for 2011 Math CMT results for grades 3,4, and 5, we find:
Greenwich (76.3% at or above goal, 81.2, 84.0) (3rd, 4th, 5th grades)
Newtown (87.8%, 89.4, 92.0)
Madison (88.0%, 93.5, 89.0)
Avon (78.4%, 90.2, 94.9)
Simsbury (86.9%, 86.2, 92.9)
Monroe (87.9%, 91.1, 87.8)

For comparison, here are some of those DRG-A towns:
Darien (82.5%. 92.1, 93.1)
New Canaan (90.9%, 91.3, 88.9)
Westport (83.8%, 91.3, 91.6)

Data from the below site, which can be reached from the State Department of Education site.
http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/Index.aspx

Did I selectively choose towns for comparison for DRG-B?  Yes I did.  These were the top five performers this year on the Math CMT for grades 3-8 in DRG-B, according to the CT Dept. of Education, as published in the Greenwich Times on 24 July 2011.  Where was Greenwich?  17 out of 18.  I'm not a statistician, but these gaps look statistically significant for the population sizes (300-700 per grade).

 
The July 24 article has our former superintendent saying it is not so bad, since the growth/progress of Greenwich students over time is improving faster than other districts.  And I am sure there were all sorts of charts to prove it.

Yet, from an absolute point of view, Greenwich is still behind.  Sooooooo I'm thinking, we should catch up in what, eight to ten years?  Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: the faster you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up!  (For math students out there, please point out the flaw in that "logic")

That is why it is so refreshing to hear Dr. Lulow, in Sunday's article, say "he believes there is a logic to the rankings, and administrators and teachers recognize there is work to be done." (articles words, not Dr. Lulow's) 

He also stated "It is acceptable and legitimate and responsible for people to debate and discuss school performace.  We take a lot of the public's money.  People have every reason to question what we do."
 
Good start to dealing with the problem.  That's what this blog is about.

Greenwich Public Schools Mathematics Curriculum - Everyday Math

The following presentation was made to the Board of Education of the Greenwich Public Schools at their meeting on 17 November 2011.  The presentation is the start of an effort to have the entire K-12 mathematics curriculum reviewed immediately (for reasons explained in the presentation), and to push for immediate action to address the damage being done to our children by the EVERYDAY MATHEMATICS (R) ("EDM") program used in grades K-5 (for obvious reasons).  As this blog develops, I will provide links to websites detailing the problems with this program and others like it.  I will also provide a link to a site where you can sign a petition addressed to the Board of Education calling for the replacement of EDM.

I hope to hear from all parents with their thoughts about mathematics education and about EDM, good and bad.  Parents must play an active role in their children's education, including participating in the selection of the educational material.  I hope this will serve as a forum for making our children's math education better.

 _________________________________________________________________________________

Mathematics in Greenwich Schools

Remarks to the Board of Education – 17 November 2011

[NOTE: items in brackets were left out due to the three minute time limit.]

(Items in parentheses and in bold are footnoted references - see end of post)

My name is Brian Peldunas.  My wife, Liz, and I are the parents of a third grade student at Riverside.

On 7 October 2011, I submitted a request for curriculum review (attached) for mathematics, with the appropriate forms, to Dr. Lulow.  In a follow up conversation with Dr. Lulow, he stated that the timing of a review was a Board of Education decision, and he promised to raise the matter after the budget season.  Given that budget will be required to execute a curriculum review, I am coming to you tonight to make two requests.  

First, that the planned 2014 curriculum review for Mathematics be rescheduled to begin immediately.  Given the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, and the introduction of new Connecticut Mastery Tests in 2014, an immediate start to the review is warranted to align our curriculum with the new standards (which are already reflected on the new report cards).  The need for this review is recognized on page 50 of Dr. Lulow’s recent Achievement Report, stating we should “Create/Revise Math and Language Arts curriculum to align with Common Core Standards.”  A thoughtful, comprehensive review, followed by good execution, will benefit all Greenwich Public School students and will put the district on the road to improving our standing on standardized tests versus comparable districts (GT, DB).  Why wait?

Second, that action is taken now to systemically address the shortcomings of the Everyday Mathematics program across all of our elementary schools, so all of our students receive a quality math education, not just those students whose parents can afford to address the shortcomings of this program. 

Attached is an example of the “quality” of the Everyday Mathematics program (page 4).  The instructions ask the student to “Fill in each shape to make a recognizable figure.”  This problem appears not once, but twice, in the Student Math Journal, the in-class workbook.  Is this a suitable problem for a second grader?  How is it advancing their mathematical knowledge?  But the reality is even worse: this exercise “problem” is in the sixth grade book.  Even though Greenwich does not use EDM in grade six, such an example leads me to question whether this program should be used in grades K-5.  Two examples of questionable fourth grade homework sets are also attached.

No program is perfect, but Everyday Math is failing our children.  Its mile-wide, inch-deep, unfocused content; its limited attention to automatic recall of basic facts and to the standard algorithms; and its spiraling structure have all been rejected by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP).  Our teachers are extensively supplementing the program just to give their students a fighting chance.  The very philosophical foundation of Everyday Math is flawed, and must be rejected.  Given the on-going damage (and I do not use that word lightly) being done to our students, the curriculum review must commence now and Everyday Mathematics must be changed now.  We need to do better, now.  It is time to focus on curriculum.

[Possible actions could range from scrapping the Everyday Math program next year, to eliminating sections of that program now in order to make time for critical topics and instruction, to organizing parent-led after-school groups to help students fill the gaps, to implementing a second competing curriculum (e.g., Saxon or Singapore Math). ]

I will push even farther.  “The Board of Education shall govern the District in such a manner that it sets the national standard for governance, oversight, public engagement and stewardship of the public education system.” (BOEG-000)   If this district is to truly prepare our students for college and/or for the work force of the future, the core competency in the so-called STEM subjects, that is Mathematics, needs focus.  I challenge the Board and the Administration to get serious about mathematics.  Some high performing districts, such as Madison and New Canaan, have math specialists or coaches in their elementary schools (DISCUSS).  Talk to them; find out the costs and the benefits.  [Other districts, like Monroe, are moving to new curriculum in response to the new standards (DISCUSS).  Perhaps we can form a consortium with several districts to review curriculum, so we can save time and money.] 

[My initial reason for researching Everyday Mathematics was to protect my daughter and to determine where gaps needed to be filled in her education.  You may claim that my concern is for the proper education of my daughter, and you would be right.  However, my concern has grown to encompass the much broader issue of the mathematics education of all of our primary, middle and secondary school students.] 

As parents, it is difficult, without significant research, to judge the methods used to educate our children.  What we can judge effectively are the results of these methods.  We, like college professors and employers, are critical and demanding consumers of the results of our children’s educations.  Given the Board policy I quoted earlier, it is the Board of Education’s responsibility to take action on this request, with the appropriate budget.   We need better results now.

If other parents feel the same way, they can reach me at greenwichmath@gmail.com.

Thank you.

Check out "problem" 5.  More art class than math class.

 Hopefully by fourth grade we know our letters.

 Did someone say geography?

REFERENCES

GT – Greenwich Times, Page 1, 24 July 2011 – results of CMT Math for DRG-B schools

DB – State of CT database of CMT results
http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/Index.aspx

NMAP – National Mathematics Advisory Panel Final Report

http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf

DISCUSS – discussions with administrators from a variety of CT school districts

BOEG-000 - Board of Education Governance Policy G-000