|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Palo Alto school officials will hold a Parent Math Evening Tuesday to discuss their recommendation of the Everyday Mathematics series for use in K-5 classrooms beginning this fall.
The meeting will give parents a chance to learn about Everyday Mathematics, which has generated significant protest from some who say the series focuses too much on non-traditional methods at the expense of mastery of the basics.
The school board is scheduled to vote April 28 on whether to adopt the staff recommendation for Everyday Mathematics.
School officials have posted information about Everyday Mathematics and the adoption process on the district’s website.
Everyday Mathematics opponents have collected more than 550 signatures on an online petition asking the school district to postpone adoption for a year in order to pilot other textbook options.
The Parent Math Evening will be Tuesday, April 21, from 7 to 8:30 p.m. at Nixon School, 1711 Stanford Ave. Child care and live Spanish translation will be available.
It seems to me that the letter from the publisher’s company representative recommending that Everyday Math was ‘the best fit’ for Palo Alto is reason enough to drop the choice. It is completely illegal for an employee of the publishing company to make a recommendation of any kind and 1.She ought to be fired or at least put on probation and 2.The decision should be started over from scratch with samples of all three possible textbooks. I suspect that sales for Everyday Math were slow because of the numerous complaints and cancellations by other school districts as mentioned in the Daily News newspaper article. This is not a good recommendation for the adoption of Everyday Math especially since it was not even reviewed by staff at all. Also Singapore Math, the parents favorite, is the state recommended text. Using ‘Everyday Math’ the students will be one year behind at the end of elementary school as well. I cannot believe how gullible and foolish this decision was and it does not speak well at all for the new ‘open and transparent process’ that Superintendent Skelly promised us. He should redeem himself by apologizing to the parents and the public. As superintendent he is responsible for his staff even if he did not know about the letter.
To Ellieg:
To correct 2 incorrect statements in your message:
(1) Everyday Math was reviewed by staff on the committee given that task, hence the recommendation from the committee.
(2) Everyday Math and Singapore Math, along with others, are both on the state’s list of what can be adopted using state instructional materials funds; i.e. both are “recommended”.
Lastly, whether Singapore Math is the “parents’ favorite” is a matter of interpretation and/or whose opinion you listen to, so can’t be labeled as correct or incorrect.
to ‘get the facts straight’
While ‘Everyday Math’ was reviewed by the staff committee there was no reason to exclude Singapore Math from the list of recommended state texts.
You seem to think that the letter from the publishers employee that specifically suggested that Everyday Math would ‘be the best fit for Palo Alto’ was totally irrelevant. Are you completely unaware how illegal this is? Publishers are required by state law to refrain from making any decisions or recommendation about the choice of a text by a school district.
On re-reading my letter I perhaps should have said that Singapore Math was many parents favorite and should have at least been reviewed and considered instead of specifically not included at all. I hope that the parents will take this up with a lawyer if there is not a little more respect for the law.
Ellieg,
I’m afraid you must be responding to someone else’s post. I did not mention anything about the publisher or anything about what the committee selected to pilot. I did not make a comment or express an opinion. I simply provided correct information on two items in your post. My last statement on that post was an opinion of sorts.
Now for a real opinion: it is discouraging that such a simple correction (for the sake of making sure the facts are out there) produces such heat and assumptions (e.g. “you seem to think”).
This is just the “Math Wars” repeating itself. Simple fact: The Palo Alto School Board endorses constructivist approaches to education. They will always pick “new math” over “traditional math”, and most likely “whole language” over “phonics”. This is no different from a religious war. I’m sorry to say this, but any attempt to reverse the choice of Everyday Math will fail despite your best efforts, even if you spend hundreds of hours putting together a protest. You absolutely will not be able to persuade a constructivist that an emphasis on basic math skills is better than an emphasis on problem solving skills, which focus on the real world.
I must repeat, this is just like religion, and you aren’t going to convert anybody. There are tons of statistics that correlate “new math” with decreased test scores, but those will never sway a believer. I repeat, all the statistics in the world will not sway a believer, so please save yourself a lot of time and don’t bother to fight the decision. Instead, just teach math the way you want it to be taught to your kids and put up with the curriculum that Palo Alto dictates.
Remember there are over 5000 kids in the next 7 years who will be taught this curriculum. We are standing up for them and their place in this century. We cannot give up simply because parents have failed in the past.
What I want to know is why hardly anyone knew of this textbook adoption. Why didn’t Skelly send out an email to all the parents instead of relying on each school to publicize? He sent out emails to us about a visit to a Hays classroom and to wish us a good Spring Break. Those are more important than notifying us about the textbook committee? And now he supports Everyday Math. Seems rather fishy to me. Politics as usual, no transparency that he promised when he stepped into office.
What I keep hearing from the district – from my child’s teachers, from the principal, from the math materials currently adopted, from the presentations at Tuesday night at Nixon – is that a balanced curriculum is what will be taught.
I went down to see a lesson taught with the new materials.
The reaction of the parent group in the public lesson we saw was literally, “What’s all the fuss about?” The kids were all engaged in the lesson. The teacher and principal talked with us afterward and answered our questions. I really appreciated their efforts and professionalism.
Looking a little further into the matter, I find of absolute relevance to this community a paper entitled Math Wars by Alan Shoenfeld, published in the Journal EDUCATIONAL POLICY / January and March 2004 It is always best to read the entirety of a document, but here is a fascinating excerpt:
“As noted above, tactics employed in the math wars can be rather nasty.Robert Megginson (personal communication, July 5, 2003) has noted a strong similarity between the tactics used by some antireformers and the antievolution tactics used by “creation scientists.” Referring to Michael Shermer’s (2002) discussion of what might be called the “creation wars,” Megginson asked: Has anyone noticed that the more extreme members of Mathematically Correct have
taken their strategy and tactics, almost line for line, straight out of the creation scientists’ playbook? In particular—
1. Number one tactic—Go after the boards in the big states, particularly California and Texas, that evaluate and approve textbooks. If you can get the books with your point of view at the top of the playlists, you are in great shape.
2. Number two tactic—Plant fear in the minds of well-meaning parents,who genuinely and understandably want the best for their children, that the schools are subjecting their children to unproven theories that may result in their not getting into heaven or Berkeley.
3. Number three tactic—Constantly demand proof of their position (which you never intend to accept) from those who disagree with you, attempting to create the impression that they do not really have much. When they offer any evidence, poke and prod hard at every facet and in every crevice of it until something is found that seems not fully justified or a bit controversial or counterintuitive, and use that to discard the entire piece of evidence.
4. Above all, treat any disagreement among your opponents, or modification in position due to new evidence (“even so-and-so doesn’t believe in her former position on this anymore”) as an indication that your opponents have it wrong,and therefore (!) that you have it right. (R. Megginson, personal communica-
tion, July 5, 2003)
The entire document, which in the end encourages rational discussion of finding middle ground and rejecting the extremists’ shouting propoganda. Now I see people asking to have their names removed from the petition. Hmmmmm. Glad I never signed it in the first place.
former scared parent,
Any math program which is being piloted is going to look great.
The opposers of Everyday Math are not right wing, kill & drill radicals. It’s a mixture of people, some who do not believe in religion at all, others who do. Religious standpoints are absolutely irrelevent.
– They are people who have extensively studied the texts, perhaps more than the math adoption committee has, they are people with graduate degrees.
– They are people who have direct experience with Everyday Math.
– They are people who want to improve our math program because they believe that all Palo Alto children deserve a fair chance at math. Believe me, THEIR children will be fine with ANY math program because they are involved with their children’s academics.
It’s the other children who have working parents or uninvolved parents that they are fighting for. Sure, it would be good for their own children too, but if the committee were all for themselves, they would prefer EDM so there would be less competition for their own children (EDM frustrates and confuses children so much that the majority end up disliking math).
Other schools using Everyday Math have rewritten many parts of the program to make it work. Why not just adopt a good program which can easily be followed? There are many out there.
PAUSD is offering 4 meetings per year to learn the extra algorithms taught in Everyday Math so they can help their children. Everyday Math teaches a variety of algorithms rather than focusing on the standard algorithm parents are familiar with. EDM states: “the student would reach the final answer in three steps rather than two.”
EDM states: “…traditional U.S. long division algorithm…is hard for most students to learn and apply. Picking the right digits for the quotient then multiplying and subtracting can be both difficult and confusing.” Here’s a video of a couple of the algorithms taught. How can children possibly calculate in their heads when they have to draw a graph? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI
EDM asks children to invent their own algorithms, stating: “invented algorithms are a radical improvement over the traditional algorithms learned in school.”
EDM states that for the program to be successful, teachers need to spend at least an hour everyday but recommends 75-90 minutes per day. Of Palo Alto teachers, 60% teach an hour or less of math per day due to time constraints. How are the teachers going to build in the extra time to teach those extra algorithms or all the extras built into the EDM curriculum? One could debate that they’ll be learning more math if time is added, but the question is, is the math relevant? Do they really need to learn so many different ways, especially ones which they cannot use for calculating in their heads? And if time is not added, will the program succeed?
Here’s from the EDM textbook for teachers: “Keep going, even when some of the students don’t have mastery of the objective.”
The National Mathematics Advisory Panel studied international success in January 2008 and advised against programs such as Everyday Math: “Elementary math textbooks should have a focused, coherent progression of mathematics learning, with an emphasis on proficiency with key topics…any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided.”
EDM also relies heavily on calculators, stating: “calculators are moree efficient ways to solve problems than standard algorithms, which lead to ‘persistent errors…long division is no longer needed because of the widespread availability of calculators…fraction calculators make it possible to do arithmetic with fractions without tedious paper-and-pencil methods.”
It’s no wonder parents of EDM districts are outraged.
According to information submitted by Poway and other districts to California Dept of Education, consumables (workbooks, etc) for EDM cost $26/year and according to the publisher pricelist SRA consumables would cost $10.69/year. Given there are ~5,000 students in the district. That translates to $910,000 versus $374,150 over the 7-year adoption period. That is $130,000 per year for EDM versus $53,450 per year for SRA. For a salesperson’s compensation calculation, it means that the total contract value would be $535,150 less if we selected SRA over EDM!! Why would any sales person in recommend SRA? They clearly have an incentive to push EDM.
This is why California Education Code 60061 and its subsections require that the publisher not make these decisions for any school district. But, here McGraw Hill Sales VP, Sharon Lane clearly made the decision for PAUSD. And, now the PAUSD staff and the Committee are busy defending the decision. Why?
Something does not make sense.
“…any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided.”
No disagreement. The simple truth is that both PAUSD and EDM strongly support driving to mastery per the state and local standards within each grade level. It is not a ‘year after year without closure’ program. It foreshadows and reviews within each grade level. It also reviews at the next grade levels, but with the idea of reinforcing already mastered concepts. Those of you who keep putting forth this tired ‘spiraling is bad and EDM spirals’ argument should stop relying on hearsay. Study the PAUSD curriculum standards. Talk with some grade school teachers about how they’ll drive to closure. Don’t be suckered by scare tactics.
Now, about those examples of students who weren’t prepared for junior high level math: Every single junior high school math teacher, no matter what textbook was used in elementary school, will be able to give you some examples of stellar incoming students and examples of incoming students who couldn’t multiply 6×8 without a calculator. Citing isolated examples from the tails of a distribution — either from the high end or the low — is not a way to build a credible argument. It’s just misuse of data and more scare tactics.
So where’s the objective data (as opposed to anecdotes and untenable extrapolations from small populations) for the detrimental effects of the EM textbooks? Those who have followed the whole exchange are tired of my saying it, but the Department of Education’s ‘What Works Clearinghouse’ http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/elementary_math/eday_math/index.asp sets a high standard of evidence, rejects most studies because they don’t clear the bar, and is conservative in drawing conclusions. WWC’s conclusion on EM is that it rates the second highest classification – “potentially positive”. Not “mixed”, “no discernible effects”, “potentially negative”, or “negative” — “potentially positive”. None has ever gotten the highest rating, “positive”.
Some other participants in the discussion have tried to discredit the few credible studies by saying, ‘Wow, WWC could find hardly any studies to support EM, and those they found have flaws X, Y and Z’. Somehow they clam up when I point out that WWC could find NO studies that can be the basis of a solid vote of confidence for whatever their alternative choice might be. The other textbooks most certainly have their good points, and eventually there might be studies that show whether the shape of the distribution curve for students taught with them justifies their supporters’ fervor, but for all the claims of ‘vast evidence’ there are as of yet no studies that have made the grade. As for EDM: “The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Everyday Mathematics to be medium to large for math achievement.”
EM is a widely used program that’s been around for 30 years. Some districts that used it had scores go up. Others had scores go down. All of them had teachers of varying skill and training and students with varying background. Palo Alto has, for the most part, highly skilled teachers. Palo Alto has, for the most part, highly capable students with engaged parents. Palo Alto is always among the top performers. They could make any textbook work. Why does the committee think EM is the BEST choice? It’s because the educational goals are defined in the context of PAUSD’s unabashed belief in a constructivist approach as the best way to develop thought-capable graduates. PAUSD has plenty of proof that, in our teachers and parents hands, it works.
If you didn’t know that when you moved here ‘for the schools’, then you know it now. Please either accept it and help make it work for your child or don’t, but if you don’t then please go somewhere else. I don’t want your child or mine to suffer through years of your insufferable need to complain and decisions to invest your energy in negative pursuits.
I hope the Board (except for Camille Townsend, who generally seems to be more swayed by popular sentiment than synthesis of original data and is sufficiently entertaining in espousing her views to be tolerated) will conclude most of the petition signers have jumped on the bandwagon and parroted the instigators.
Hearsay and someone else’s opinion (even mine) are NOT objective evidence — even if that someone else is a college professor or engineer from a top-tier university, and particular if they’re not in the business of educating complex elementary school minds. I earned a PhD at a top-tier graduate school, too. That’s nothing special in Palo Alto. I take a keen interest in ensuring my children have an enriching environment at home, and I’m sure the people here who disagree with me do, as well. I’m more than willing to respectfully disagree with people who study the same data and reach different conclusions. It’s the people who base their conclusions on someone else’s opinion that I have trouble stomaching.
Go read WWC, talk with your grade school teachers about how they drive to mastery, teach alternative algorithms NOW, use calculators in the classroom NOW, AND embrace constructivist teaching, and ask yourself honestly — are you sure you’re not falling into the “She says it’s yucky, so I don’t want any” trap? Maybe you’ll join the others who decided they don’t want their name on a petition that sounded so reasonable but turned out to be someone else’s agenda.
Tim,
Debate is a sport for you and I’ll take the bait because this is an easy one – EVERYTHING YOU WROTE IS COMPLETELY INCORRECT and hearsay with no links to facts. You obviously don’t know anything about the EDM program.
The whole goal of EDM is that children learn from spiraling (NOT reviewing – spiraling is when many aren’t given enough time to master – EDM thinks that by repetition, the knowledge will suddenly kick-in one day). EDM states in their teacher’s handbook: “Keep going even when some of the students don’t have mastery of the subject.” For PAUSD to say they will not spiral is for them to rewrite the entire program. What’s the point then? Just find a program which doesn’t need to be competely rewritten.
Yes, calculators and constructivist teaching is occuring now, but only because the current program is Investigations, which is just a step up from EDM. EDM uses calculators and constructivist teaching but to a much larger degree than Investigations – to a dangerous degree.
The WWC? Their research is bogus and you’ve already been proven wrong on past threads.
You wrote, “It’s the people who base their conclusions on someone else’s opinion that I have trouble stomaching.” Yet you are basing your conclusions on the adoption committee’s opinion. And the adoption committee based their conclusion on the EDM sales rep’s opinion.
WhoKnow?, you missed the key points. I didn’t say EDM doesn’t embrace spiraling. I said it doesn’t do it year-to-year without closure, and so it is not painted black by the National Panel’s brush.
I do agree Investigations is working in Palo Alto.
To say WWC ‘is bogus’ and ‘you’ve already been proven wrong’ is to say you haven’t studied WWC and you won’t.
I’m not basing my conclusions on the committee’s opinion. I’m saying I reached the same conclusion.
MathWarsRepeatsItself,
So, let’s see, you claim that PAUSD favors constructivist approaches to education. But those methods always fail. But PAUSD has a long history of being a top school disctrict.
Do you see the basic logical flaw in your argument?
And how does favoring constructivist education equate with religious faith? The vast majority of PAUSD kids graduate, pass tests and go on to college–that’s not a leap of faith. Somebody’s managing something.
Anyway, now that this thread’s getting to the political background behind the debate, let’s point out once again that Ze’ev Wurman is a former Bush education official. What side of this educational argument do you think he’s likely to have been on?
Editors, see, it was relevant and you shouldn’t have censored my earlier post. Is there are larger political agenda here, given the background of one of the people leading the charge against EDM (and someone who led an earlier charge against the math curriculum choice?
For whatever reason, what happens in Palo Alto gets larger play than the actual size of the population merits. (i.e. the MI debate showed up in the New York Times).
“WhoKnow?, you missed the key points. I didn’t say EDM doesn’t embrace spiraling. I said it doesn’t do it year-to-year without closure”
Actually it does embrace spiraling within a year and year-to-year. EDM spiraling contradicts the National Math Panel’s recommendations.
As for statistics, I think you’re admitting there are no good stats to guide us here. In that case, why not use some guidelines, like the NMP? This, of course, would rule out EDM.
OP,
“Anyway, now that this thread’s getting to the political background behind the debate, let’s point out once again that Ze’ev Wurman is a former Bush education official. What side of this educational argument do you think he’s likely to have been on?”
I do not believe that there is a “Democrat” or a “Republican”, or a “Libertarian” math. If you do, I suggest–yet again–that you disclose your name and we will judge everything by whatever affiliation you may have. I also suggest to find yourself another forum to peddle your ugly and baseless insinuations.
E.D. Hirsch is a long-time Democrat. Diane Ravitch is an long-time Democrat. Checker Finn is an long-time Republican. Al Shanker was a long-time Democrat. They all rejected reform programs like EDM and publicly worried about their fuzziness and lack of rigor. What does it say about party affiliation and mathematics? Nothing.
But your post does say a lot about you. And the smell is not pleasant.
Ze’ev,
There are, indeed, conservative and liberal approaches to education. That does not make one wrong or right, but education is a political issue in this country.
I’ve explained to you why I don’t use my name. You didn’t dispute my reasons–feel free to explain to me why I should risk dragging my family into this because I have an opinion on this? Anonymity has a long proud history in this country–the Founding Fathers included.
What I do make clear from my moniker is that I favor constructivist education. I’m also a contrarian by nature.
You have an agenda–I agree that there’s not a single reason why people oppose EDM–but it doesn’t change the fact that your views do, in fact, follow a certain ideological bent. I think you’ve attempted to make a reasoned case for your views, but that it’s also worth looking at, given your strong advocacy position here, what else is going on. Your children, I believe, will not be affected by the new math curriculum–so what’s driving you isn’t immediate. PAUSD’s math scores are historically strong, so what’s driving you isn’t the district’s failure to meet overall goals. So I’d say, given your longterm involvment on this issue, that you have a particular philosophy of education that you advocate–and it’s a relatively conservative one both in terms of what is taught and who should decide curriculum.
I think if the Bush administration hadn’t become so unpopular that you’d have no issue with my pointing out your background. Conservatism’s become marginalized for the time being. FWIW, I don’t agree with you, but I think your point of view has its place. Kind of along the lines of I’d never send my kid to Hoover and I don’t want a district of Hoovers, but I think it fits some families very well.
tim,
I really like the WWC study that you pointed out. I am a concerned parent, but I was not aware of this study at all.
Just curious, where did you get your PhD? I’m reading about so many concerned Mathematicians from top schools that is against EDM. To me, their opinions matter. I am wondering if there are any PhDs from top schools that is for EDM, besides the authors of the book, of course.
OP,
You may have your reasons to keep your identity hidden. However, when your throw mud at others while using your anonymity to protect yourself from the same, you are exhibiting a cowardly behavior.
Hiding behind its “long proud history in this country” is still nothing more just hiding. And some of this tradition is not very proud either. You have just joined that part of the tradition by baseless insinuations on others while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. For shame.
Your argument that what drives me is not immediate is disingenuous. I could argue that because of it, I am much more objective than most of the people involved. Or I could argue that you have no children in the system either — that you simply lie that you are a parent of Ohlone student. Or I could argue that most teachers, especially those that have no children in PAUSD, care only about their salaries. This is a foolish argument and luckily every resident can vote for the school board and not only parents of students in the system. The law is much wiser than you on this.
Please speak to the issues and not to the speaker. As I have already said, this type of posts speaks about you more than about anything else. And the odor is unpleasant.
Ze’ev,
What mud? Be specific. I haven’t said anything about you that’s not information that’s public or inferences that I’ve drawn from that (and made clear that they’re inferences)
You are free to doubt whether I have a child at Ohlone. Believe me, I’ve heard every wild supposition under the rainbow. Fact is I post the sort of information that makes it clear that I’m probably an Ohlone parent.
You say speak to the issues and not the speaker. I suggest, then, you look at your last two posts directed toward me and look at what you’ve accused me of: cowardice, lying and poor hygiene.
How is this elevating the debate or veering it away from the personal?
(And why would I think that I and my family would not be subject to more personal attacks if I decloaked?)
What have I said about you that merits that? That you have conservative views about education? That your views are longstanding? That you were an education official with the Bush Administration–something reported in SFGate?
Which, of any of these things, is incorrect? Or shameful for that matter?
OP,
This is what you wrote:
“Anyway, now that this thread’s getting to the political background behind the debate, let’s point out once again that Ze’ev Wurman is a former Bush education official. What side of this educational argument do you think he’s likely to have been on?”
1. You brought politics into it. Nobody else did. Constructivism is largely unaligned with politics.
2. Which political “side of educational argument” you are talking about? The one that Ted Kennedy, George Bush and George Miller worked together on? The side that Pete Wilson and Gray Davis were on when they approved and protected the California Standards and rejected most of constructivist ideology?
3. You play to mostly Democratic audience in Palo Alto, then you throw in Bush’s name and try to insinuate some unspecified political motivation, and then you pretend innocently to ask “what wrong have I done?” Do you even know my political affiliation? You might be surprised.
4. I did not accuse you of lying about your Ohlone child. I did not argue that teachers don’t care about our students. I simply pointed out that your argument about my motivation is disingenuous and can play in many ways. Unless you have reading disability, you shouldn’t have much difficulty parsing that text.
The only thing I did accuse you of is throwing political insinuations on other people’s motivation while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. Not a very brave position. And the only comment I made about your hygiene was about your ethical one.
Ze’ev,
I see, so mentioning a publicly reported fact about you that ties directly into education makes your odd personal attack on me okay? Again you accuse me of cowardice, you wiggle around your earlier implication that my anonymity makes me a liar and now you’re impugning my ethics.
Why? Because you think people will hold your having worked for Bush against you. Okay, that’s a legitimate concern on your part–but it is what it is–you chose to work in this area for Bush. I’d be more impressed if, instead of attacking my character, you either defended your involvment or let us know why it’s not pertinent.
Why shouldn’t I look at your background and motives here? Why are you owed anything on this front from anyone? You want to intervene with the actions of the school district here. Why shouldn’t I ask why?
Constructivism is not a conservative educational philosophy–not with its focus on student-directed learning and the de-emphasizing of the teacher as a central authority. And, frankly, I’ve seen enough of the mutterings about Ohlone here to tell you that, yes, there’s a liberal/conservative split regarding the school. It’s far from absolute, but it’s there and it’s not really surprising–as the feminists used to say the personal is political. Our political values tie into and should reflect our personal values.
Charter schools while not exclusively conservative are very much a response to a conservative push against the current system of public schools. I consider them a reasonably good compromise between the old status quo and vouchers, but I don’t like the use of charters as a form of blackmail against districts. Charter schools are well on their way to being another special-interest group. I’d like to see some thoughtful regulation in this area.
So, no, I don’t think you’re a right-wing ideologue, but over the time that you’ve been posting I’ve gradually come to the conclustion that this isn’t a small cut-and-dried local affair, while I think the debate over EDM falls into rigid categories–people have an array of reasons for opposing EDM–there is a political aspect here that ties in partly to Palo Alto’s bellwether status.
You’ve been pretty calm and reasoned which make me wonder whether your vituperative attacks on me are simply a distraction technique–a way of discouraging people from looking at your background in this area. How outraged are you, really?
OP
Your incessant free flowing personal accusations discredit the points you are trying to make. They are uncomfortable for people to read and not necessary. Why you are so angry with people you have not met because they have different ideas than you do is beyond me. It is ludicrous and insensitive, even worse when you do it in a public fashion like this. Gee, the only thing you know about these people is where they work and that they disagree with you. Freedom of speech and association without humiliation and castigation is one of our country’s founding principles that would be good to take to heart.
To your substantive point: PAUSD teachers teach a blend of math right now – not construtivist as you claim. Gosh, Ohlone teaches out of some of the most traditional, old fashioned math books around – the Key Curriculum Press books that probably many of us used when we were kids, well before reformed math was born.
A recent teacher survey floating around shows that Palo Alto teachers teach regularly from both Investigations and the traditional text book – a blend math experts all agree is as it should be.
Everyday Math is not a blend. McGraw Hill admits as much, telling its investors that it is a specialized niche product for the reform math market. Couldn’t be clearer no matter how many times the publisher calls it a blend in its marketing materials.
Tim
The district says that Everyday Math does not always close the learning loop within a year. Not good in the National Math Panel’s eyes, hence the parent consternation.
“The district says that Everyday Math does not always close the learning loop within a year.”
I trust you’re referring to section 14 of the Q&A.
Later in the same section, the district addresses this. PAUSD may be unlike other EDM adopters in that mastery is built into the curriculum.
“According to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, “A focused, coherent progression of mathematics learning, with an emphasis on proficiency with key topics should become the norm… Any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided.”4 What can get misrepresented by providing a limited picture of a math program is that teachers and students are not held accountable, or given the tools they need, to become proficient in the skills and concepts outlined by our standards. This is not true. The EDM curriculum is divided into topic chapters that focus on developing a set of related concepts over a series of consecutive lessons. At the end of each chapter, there is a chapter assessment. Student progress toward mastery of math skills and concepts is assessed and, unlike in traditional textbooks, the curriculum provides embedded, continued practice once the unit is finished. Teachers will use their discretion to provide any additional time or practice with a concept or skills, based on their observations of student work, just as they always have. Teachers will use a revised District Basic Facts Assessment system to keep students and their families informed throughout the school year about progress toward mastery.”
a parent,
I haven’t said that Ohlone teaches constructivist math, I’ve said it uses the same curriculum as the other schools. I don’t even know what “constructivist math” is, per se. What I know about is a constructivist approach to teaching (student-led, project-based, teamwork)–that approach can be used with quite traditional or nontraditional algorithms.
And Ohlone does do that–and the other schools do pay attention to what happens at Ohlone and incorporate some of those methods and whole-child approaches. It’s an approach that’s of interest to the education department of Stanford. From what I can see, it’s an approach that tends to appeal to teachers–thus, the high percentage of district teacher kids at Ohlone. Thus, a general trend in that direction in this district.
My ease with nontraditional, project-based learning does probably mean that I’m tempermentally a little more open to different math approaches than some other parents.
Here’s a link to the board packet for tomorrow night. If you care deeply about the topic, please do read it. http://www.pausd.org/community/board/downloads/item_007.pdf
There has been a current in many of the posts trying to sweep us into the idea that adopting EDM would be violating the number one recommendation of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, that “any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided.”
As I said before, I agree w/ NMAP. After looking deeply at EDM and PAUSD standards, I simply don’t see any inconsistency between NMAP’s recommendation and PAUSD’s adoption of EDM. That’s because EDM and PAUSD drive to closure on topics at grade level within the year.
That’s not to say EDM doesn’t embrace year-to-year spiraling (prior exposures to topics that will be developed to closure in a later grade and repeat exposures to topics that were developed to closure in a prior grade) or that such spiraling is bad. I’d posit that good teachers in every subject do that as a matter of routine.
Here’s an excerpt from the board packet on the topic:
Attachment 11, p38-39: “The mathematics in Everyday Math is an integration of topics in numeration, arithmetic operations, algebra and functions, geometry, measurement, and data analysis. Proficiency in each of these strands is defined in the Grade-Level Goals that are linked to individual lessons and assessments. These goals articulate when closure is achieved and specify detailed expectations. TOPICS ARE TAUGHT TO CLOSURE EVERY YEAR. Review of core topics is distributed throughout the curriculum, linked to the grade-level goals, and enhanced in subsequent years to help students develop deeper, more sophisticated, and more connected understanding.”
Correction: The quote is from pages 139-139 of the board packet pdf.
Tim,
Well, the National Math Panel says: teach to mastery, don’t spiral. It describes spiraling in detail, mentions it by name, and flatly says it is bad pedagogical juju. The methods the NMP describes are exactly the ones EDM uses in its approach to the material.
The only way the NMP could have been clearer is by giving the report a different title: EDM Spiraling is Bad.
Perhaps the district failed to read the NMP recommendations early in the review process, perhaps it doesn’t understand them, or perhaps it simply disagrees with the NMP. Whichever, you can’t square the circle.
If you buy the NMP recommendations, you cannot rationally support the EDM curriculum.
I don’t know what is motivating the district at this point, but it now seems to be trying hard to peddle the line you are flogging: NMP and EDM are somehow compatible. A and not A.
I see several attempts to spin this debate in favor of the district:
1. “PAUSD standards demand closure so everything will be hunky-dory.” [This has nothing to do with whether EDM fits with NMP or not.]
2. “Good teachers give their students repeated exposure to material, so there’s nothing wrong with spiraling.” [This conflates spiraling (re-teaching the same topic multiple times from scratch over 1-3 years) with practice (sometimes called spaced instruction, this provides practice of skills at some delay after initial learning). Spaced instruction is well supported by research literature. By contrast, spiraling has no support. So to fix that quote: a good curricula give students a chance to practice but does not re-teach.]
3. “The text is just one tool in the toolkit, and teachers are the important link.” [Combines begging the question and strawman. Either the tool is a good one or not. Rather than make excuses for buying a bad tool, better to buy a good tool. No one argues that teachers are unimportant. However, there is good evidence that the curriculum is important.]
So let’s have clarity in this discussion. Dump the NMP. Or dump EDM. And start the process over. No more district spin.
Well … let’s take a look at the NMP final report.
“By the term focused, the Panel means that the curriculum must include
(and engage with adequate depth in) the most important topics underlying success in school algebra, particularly the Critical Foundations of Algebra. By the term coherent, the Panel means that the curriculum is marked by effective, logical progressions from earlier, less sophisticated topics into later, more
sophisticated ones. By the term proficiency, the Panel means that students should understand key concepts, achieve automaticity as appropriate (e.g., with addition and related subtraction facts), develop flexible, accurate, and automatic execution of the
standard algorithms, and use these competencies to solve problems.11
11 This meaning is in keeping with Adding It Up (National Research Council, p. 116), in which five attributes were associated with the concept of proficiency: 1) conceptual understanding (comprehension of mathematical concepts, operations, and relations), 2) procedural fluency (skills in carrying out procedures flexibly, fluently, and appropriately), 3) strategic competence (ability to formulate, represent, and solve mathematical problems), 4) adaptive reasoning (capacity for logical thought, reflection, explanation, and justification), and 5) productive disposition (habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, useful, and worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy).
To me that sounds like exactly what PAUSD is doing.
“… [good] curricula avoid the need to revisit essentially the same
material over several years, often referred to as “spiraling.”
If “spiraling” is revisiting essentially the same material over several years, then PAUSD’s intended use of EDM doesnt’ fit the NMP definition of “spiraling”. Integrated exposure to more advanced concepts, closure at grade level, and building on mastered concepts (what PAUSD does) isn’t what NMP was talking about.
Too much hand waving, Tim.
Now you say that EDM spirals (and violates the NMP), but PAUSD will re-purpose the book so that the spiral is less pernicious and somehow, abracadabra, does not go against the NMP.
The problem lies in the abracadabra. No one has done it. We have no reason to think it can be done. (And if we intend to yank the spiraling out of EDM, then why choose it in the first place?)
As for what the NMP means when it refers to spiraling, please read the full report. It defines spiraling as what the U.S. does as compared with top-performing countries, and it specifies two characteristics: 1. The large number of topics presented at each grade level in the U.S., each receiving relatively limited development, 2. The way U.S. curricula “review and extend at successive grade levels many … topics already presented at earlier grade levels.”
In a nutshell, the NMP is saying, “Don’t introduce so many topics at each grade level. If you introduce a topic, teach it deeply and to closure that year.”
Yet the EDM publisher tells us that EDM is intentionally constantly changing topics, teaching at a shallow level, and aims for closure in year three!
–“[A]s usual in Everyday Mathematics, proficiency is expected only after multiple exposures over several years.”
–“This program has a “spiral” design that informally introduces topics for 2 years before formal study.”
–“What we want teachers to do is to bring it up, drop it, bring it up again, let it go, bring it up again, let it go, and then at some point, aim for mastery. That’s built into essentially every part of our program…. Were constantly changing topics.”
EDM is inconsistent with the NMP recommendations.
Why should we – district, teachers, parents, students have to bend over backwards in order to try to make EDM work? To please an EDM salesperson? So he/she can list the great PAUSD as a buyer?
EVEN IF EDM has all sorts of problems that need to be tackled – curriculum, excessive “training” requirements etc.
The burden of proof should be on the EDM people demonstrating how our new curriculum purchase will benefit our district students.
The burden should not be on US to do work arounds.
Please select another Math curriculum!
If you look at what the math adoption committee submitted to the board regarding “filling in the gaps”, you will see that they want to delete, add, and change in all sorts of places so it is no longer the actual Everyday Math program and they are relying on teachers to find their own way, thus each teacher will teach math differently. There is no mandate that all the teachers in the district meet and agree. This would be a big burden on teachers. And Everyday Math has so many extra ways of teaching math that each teacher will delete differently. How will there be consistency from year to year if teachers teach differently?
Right now, it’s just a matter of getting Everyday Math passed, whatever it takes, whether or not the committee has doubts about the program.
Ze’ev, do not listen to the Bush Derangement Syndrome folks. They use “Bush Admin employee” in the same way as “Worked for Hitler” and show their ignorance and hate, drawing only those like them to their side. Luckily, most Americans are too smart and independent to fall for that stuff, so just ignore it and keep doing the work you are doing.
The only was any educational policy can be considered “conservative” versus “liberal” I guess would be if you equate “tried and true so why not use it” with Conservative, and “untried or unproven so why not try it” with Liberal.
If that be the criteria, I would rather go with what has been shown to work with the most kids than what hasn’t been shown to work, and therefore what requires the least teacher/staff interventions and time for adapting it for those that need the extra support.
Wouldn’t we choose medical procedures in the same way?
Widershins —
In the Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, page 17 (curricular content – critical foundations of algebra), the panel reports:
“To suggest what essential concepts and skills should be learned as preparation for algebra course work, the Panel reviewed the skills and concepts listed in 1) the Grades 1–8 curricula of the highest-performing countries on TIMSS (Singapore, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Flemish Belgium, and the Czech Republic), sometimes called the “A+ countries,” 2) National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence (hereinafter Focal Points), 3) Grades K–8 in the six highest-rated state curriculum frameworks in mathematics, 4) a 2007 American College Testing (ACT) survey, and 5) a Panel sponsored survey of 743 teachers of introductory Algebra across the country who were asked what students need to learn to be prepared for success in Algebra.”
See: https://www.everydaymathonline.com/
Under Free Family Resources the publication: Everyday Mathematics and the NCTM Curriculum Focal Points illustrates Everyday Mathematics’ ALIGNMENT with a coherent scope and sequence – following the curricular success of high achieving TIMSS countries – therefore, Everyday Mathematics DOES line up with the NMAP recommendations – study the actual books & lessons already!
Furthermore, please stop acting like the NMAP is the end-all wisdom for mathematics instruction. Check out this link: http://edr.sagepub.com/content/vol37/issue9/#FEATURES
For more information from academic/scientific criticism of the Panel’s process and results.
Tim – I have appreciated your thoughtful contributions, I hope you intend to address the Board with reason tonight.
By the way, I agree with whoever wrote that to fight the EDM is useless. Whoever wrote that was brilliant. It takes a while to figure out, but the bottom line is that we ARE a district with a certain philosophy, and we are not going to adopt anything that goes against that philosophy. Period. Regardless of outcome data. In that sense, it is a belief system like a religion, so why bother? Either accept it and adapt for your own kid, or put your kid in a private school. Those are the only choices.
Not only is there an underlying philosophy at work, but there is the reality that once an adoption of a program or materials has reached the public announcement point, it is a done deal..again, nothing will stop it or change it, because all the red herrings will come into play.
What red herrings?
1) To oppose is disrespectful of teachers
2) To oppose means you are a Drill and Kill right wing nutcase
3) To oppose means that you are uninformed
4) Every study is equal and valid as an “opinion”, there is no way to evaluate data. Your opinion is just as valid as mine.
5) The intention is good, so the outcome will be
And so on…
Has anyone ever gotten the data on how many of the kids who made it through any of the Junior year AP maths in the last few years went through OUR elementary school program without tutors? I am still willing to bet that 80% of the kids in an AP math class in Junior year went to private school or had math tutoriing outside of PAUSD if they went to our school.
Any outcome data, anywhere?
Enough! and Tim – do you care that the the publisher (with PAUSD) violated CA Education Code 60061? And Skelly claims “we would have chosen EDM no matter what”! what? why then even do a pilot? How can you support a decision that was made based on a broken process?
If we support this we are giving the district full fredom to do as they please – these codes were put in place for a reason!
Enough,
You completely miss the point. I’m not sure why you refer to the NCTM. Are you aware that that is different from the NMP?
It’s fine that you disagree with the NMP recommendations, but the district says it agrees with them. What we need, then, is for the district to adopt a textbook that is consistent with them.
EDM is inconsistent with the NMP recommendations. But don’t take my word for it. Just listen to the panel.
Several members have said they had programs like EDM in mind when they warned against spiraling. For instance, Professor Wu of UC Berkeley said, “EM is a not a program I’d recommend.”
Tried,
“…but the bottom line is that we ARE a district with a certain philosophy, and we are not going to adopt anything that goes against that philosophy.”
That’s OK, then let the district be honest about its philosophy. Let it simply repudiate the NMP. At least it would be consistent, even if it were choosing a bad book.
Widershins-
I was trying to make the point that the NMP used the NCTM Focal Points for their own review & recommendations. Of course I am aware they are two separate bodies — I was just trying to point out that NMAP relied on NCTM – and Everyday Math is aligned with the NCTM Focal Points – did you bother to check that web link?
It seems this thread spirals without closure….
I couldn’t attend in person, but I’m watching the meeting online.
The last thought I expect I’ll type: There’s a BIG difference between (1) revisiting essentially the same material year after year because kids can’t remember in 3rd grade what they ‘learned’ in 2nd grade, which the NMP seems to mean by spiraling and chastises US textbooks in general for promulgating and (2) revisiting material deliberately throughout a school year to ensure retention, mastery and closure within grade level, which PAUSD teachers who piloted it say EDM does).
I’ve never said EDM doesn’t spiral, and I haven’t bought into the idea that spiraling is bad. All I’ve argued is that EDM doesn’t (especially in PAUSD where it’s a tool for the curriculum and the teachers) revisit without closure at grade level. It’s closure that distinguishes it from the “spiraling” EDM rails against.
I can’t see how that’s handwaving, but I know some people have trouble understanding me and acknowledge that my reasoning style doesn’t work for everyone.
Looking forward to the vote — and hoping we’ll all work together to support our students whatever the outcome.
‘that NMAP rails against’, of course.
“All I’ve argued is that EDM doesn’t … revisit without closure at grade level.”
This is demonstrably false. Please consult the many statements by the EDM publisher explaining their method.
“This program has a “spiral” design that informally introduces topics for 2 years before formal study. If your child doesn’t master the topic the first time, understanding will increase the next time.”
“Keep going even when some of the students don’t have mastery of the objective.”
There are many such quotes.
The key here is that EDM does aim for mastery of some topics by the end of each year, but it has a policy of covering material three years running before expecting mastery. Eventually–so the religion goes–mastery is attained.
Camille and Melissa were impressive – they want to do the right thing. They know their responsibilities.
Barb K beleives in herself, has strong conviction and influenced Barb M and Dana Tom.
Dana Tom mumbled his findings, was not clear on anything, is a weak board member and under confident. He does not do his own soul searching. I would never vote for him or Barb M.
I have to wonder how an elected Board member feels OK putting a stamp on a decision that was made by openly violating district policies and Education Code! Shame on them!