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.