A group of parents in Pelham are working to get the school board to replace the current elementary school math curriculum, TERC Investigations. A link to their website is located at right.
They held an open forum with a panel of two real math and one real computer science professors (not education professors). These professors see the result of the elementary school, middle school and high school mathematics education.
This is the recap of the event published in the Pelham local paper, and the Pelham Patch.
Dr. Akin equated math to music and sports, and brain memory to muscle memory. Not everyone is going to be a professional musician or basketball player, but with some practice everyone can play the song or play the game. Same with math.
Math is a language, used to solve problems. One must be able to translate the English (the word problem) to the other language (math symbols), then the training/practice takes over and the math problem can be solved easily IF YOU HAVE PRACTICED. Everyday Math and Investigations lack the practice needed to build the memory, so the ability to solve the problem is diminished. For a more in-depth discussion, see Dr. Akin’s paper entitled “In Defense of Mindless Rote” at:
This is an excellent view of the need for basic instruction and a solid foundation if a student is to be successful in math.
Dr. Ocken discussed the progression from standards to assessment to curriculum, and the components required to build an effective curriculum. He discussed his work on a panel to advise NYC on their curriculum revision (prior to Common Core State Standards).
I quote at length from this document, given that Greenwich and NYC both use Everyday Math (my comments are in [brackets]):
“In terms of establishing procedural fluency as recommended by NMAP [National Mathematics Advisory Panel], the content standards [NYS standards] are particularly evasive and lay the groundwork for student failures in understanding how to manipulate decimals and fractions. The operative phrase in the standards from grades 3 through 5 concerning the teaching of basic arithmetic is "use a variety of strategies to…" [Similar to the CT standards], in contrast to "learn how to…" Students are encouraged to create their own methods for multiplication and division [same in Everyday Math], rather than learn the standard methods upon which their understanding of more advanced mathematics will ultimately depend [this is the fatal flaw in learning algorithms like lattice multiplication and partial quotients]. In contrast, the California
The “use a variety of strategies” perspective of the New York standards is implemented in many curricula [Everyday Math again], notably those that present multiple alternate versions of the standard algorithms. These curricula encourage the use of inefficient methods to solve straightforward problems and should not be adopted. If they are being used, as is the case in some New York City schools [Everyday Math], they should be replaced.”
Dr. Ocken also warned (see the Pelham Patch article) of the difficulty of using supplemental material at home to repair the damage of Investigations or Everyday Math. Simple drilling will not make up for the structural deficiencies of Investigations or Everyday Math. You children are being taught two different programs, one at school and one at home, usually in different sequences. Confusion, not clarity, may result. He also warned of the failures of the Connected Math Program (used in our middle schools).
Dr. Siegel brought the prospective of a more advanced view of the result of our math education, being further down the line as a Computer Science Professor, where the course work assumes competency with calculus. The higher level thinking required in this area (as opposed to what Investigations or Everyday Math may claim to teach) relies on a firm foundation in the basics.
Food for thought for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment