« Humor Me, It's Friday | Main | February 20, 2008 »
February 19, 2008
Math Wars: In The Trenches
Despite the good work of curriculum watchdogs like NYC HOLD and Mathematically Correct, and the vigilance of concerned parents (see the front page of today's Washington Post), questionable math instructional methods continue to seep into the classroom. Parents watch in dismay as foundational concepts like the times tables are dismissed as "short cuts" in favor of the new-new math "method mix." In one suburb, families who relocated in part based on the local schools' solid reputation are dismayed to find that the wishy-washy curriculum they thought they'd left behind has been selected for adoption next year by their neighborhood Blue Ribbon school. But they're digging in to fight for what's right. For more on the pedagogical battle, check out Barry Garelick on the topic.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edspresso.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/1768
Comments
I wish this wasn't being couched in terms of a math "war". Teachers need multiple paths to ensure student learning and the Math Investigations approach is another one of those tools. I use both traditional mathematical teaching methods (algorithms, memorization) as well as investigative approaches with great success in my elementary classroom. This is not an either/or situation - it is a blending and improving situation. Many of the comments I have read against the Math Investigations programs have come from parents who are engineers or scientists - who were very successful with the traditional mathematics approach, or else they wouldn't have the jobs they do. What about those students who managed to get through Algebra 2 through sheer hard work and memorization, but never understood what any of it meant? The investigations approach works for them! So, how about we stop digging trenches and start working together to improve out mathematics instruction.
Posted by: Michelle Capen | February 19, 2008 03:20 PM
You make a lot of sense and we so appreciate your commenting. But Michelle, here's a problem to consider -- teachers don't really get to choose how they teach in most classrooms around the country, and most of them (the stats show) are not trained in math so they teach what is put in front of them. Would that we had teachers like you who could mix the two approaches to one's advantage (though I have to say I can't imagine under what circumstance you'd want a child learning to add 24 plus 49 without stacking them and carrying over so it's easy to do over time in your head rather than have to create new ways to add to make them feel engaged). The real issue is not whether or not teachers can or should be flexible -- but whether or not our students are successful. We know that math is a gateway course to success in life - no matter what their path may be. Math is a science. But any number of local, state, national and international comparisons shows us that US students are lackluster or worse in math and science, which should give us pause to ask whether or not what we are teaching gets us anywhere. There are many who argue (with compelling research) that it does not get us anywhere. It might feel like kids are getting it when you use something like Investigations, but it doesn't seem to have any sticking power. As for the use of the term "war" when it comes to these discussions, a lot of business leader, parents, and educators try week after week and year after year to approach this issue calmly and rationally. Schools and school systems become immediately antagonistic and set up a "war" mentality with an us vs. them attitude. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact we live with.
Posted by: Edspresso Editors | February 19, 2008 04:29 PM
Math education's poor state is due to a convergence of factors. One, a generalalized mentality, TV, internet, sports, there is so much information that coping and enjoying life has become synonymous with NOT getting into too many details or tasks that require persistence. Two, potential math teachers who are very good at math have strong temptations do something more lucrative, with more prestige and less stress than teaching.
Posted by: Brett Taylor | February 20, 2008 09:57 AM
Modern math education - like Everday Math is a monumental tragedy. The public schools are experimenting on our kids. When we complain we are told to shut up because we don't have the education and training of the experts. They need to called out. Thanks for the post and this site.
Posted by: Steve Olson | February 20, 2008 03:55 PM
In Honduras and four other poor Latin American countries they employ a standardized math program (APREMAT) that is broadcast on the radio to over 2 million students because they can't recruit qualified teachers to work in the jungle. APREMAT is highly effective. In Singapore students use www.heymath.com to help them learn mathematics in the school system with the highest average math scores of all TIMSS nations. Heymath is a flash animated version of the rigorous Indian math curriculum. These programs are just getting started in the US and because there is little federal, state or foundation support for math education as compared to reading It will take longer than it should for effective non traditional instruction programs to be adopted. Neither Heymath nor APREMAT could be considered new math, that’s one of the reasons they are so effective.
Posted by: John Stallcup | February 20, 2008 06:36 PM
As long as schools use investigations as their primary way of teaching math tutors around the country will be celebrating. When I was a private tutor, most of my students started around 3rd or 4th grade because they were falling behind in class since they did not have their math facts memorized. It takes a long time to take a test or finish classwork when you are still counting on your fingers. Parents would call me frustrated over the fact that their 10 year olds can't add, subtract or multiply quickly.
Posted by: Gina Riazi | February 21, 2008 07:48 AM
My view of math education can be seen at:http://miriamsideas.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-our-children-learning-math.html
Posted by: miriam | February 21, 2008 10:01 PM
What about those students who managed to get through Algebra 2 through sheer hard work and memorization, but never understood what any of it meant?
There are many variations of the "traditional math doesn't work" mantra. The above is just one more. They got through Algebra 2 and didn't understand ANY of it?
People seem to think math classes that teach procedures and skills in a sequential process which builds doesn't lead to facility in problem solving or an eventual deep understanding of the underlying concepts. One step at a time. I had facility with complex numbers in Algebra 2 but didn't really understand what they were until later in college. It is illusory to think that the deep understanding about math must be imparted to students who are still mastering the basics. For example, my understanding of "2 + 3 = 5" is a lot deeper than one would want to impart to first and second graders.
The investigations approach works for them! I very seriously doubt that. Investigations may prepare them for what passes as algebra in Connected Math Program (CMP). CMP takes the approach of throwing a kid into a swimming pool and telling them to get to the other side, and gives them clues on how to swim while they're flailing about in ever-deepending waters. Such "just in time" instruction doesn't cut it. I doubt that the graduates of Investigations and CMP would make it through Algebra 2 no matter how hard they tried.
As for the balanced approach many teachers boast about, investigative approaches work when students are able to use prior knowledge. This generally comes about through effective scaffolding. Such technique is not new and has been practiced for many years during eras that people seem to think were devoted to rote memorization and endless drill. Nowadays, the "balanced approach" is very unbalanced, requires kids to make giant cognitive leaps frequently without prior knowledge and with limited domain knowledge, and is dominated by student inquiry and omission of instruction.
Posted by: Barry Garelick | February 21, 2008 10:17 PM
