Letters to editor/South
January 31, 2013 5:59 am
/ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A case for traditional math
Mt. Lebanon parents who have been raising issues about the elementary math program this year have concerns regarding content in the program, namely the late and sparse treatment of traditional algorithms in addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and of traditional methods of computation with rational numbers (fractions).
The concerns are not about the methodology of teaching math in those classrooms, which is currently using a guided inquiry type approach framed by the sole use of TERC Investigations. This program incorporates positive improvements to the math classroom: problem solving, context and multiple strategies to analyze and discuss problems. However, traditional algorithms are not among those many strategies until fourth and fifth grades, and the students are therefore using less efficient algorithms (processes) to complete those problems for many years before advancement in the concepts can be achieved.
All of the positive aspects of the TERC Investigations program (conceptual foundations, group discussions, problem-solving strategies, mathematical thinking, mathematical literacy and positive disposition) can be incorporated into the teaching of traditional algorithms and fraction computations that include finding common denominators. Significant mathematics exist in the traditional algorithms and fractions, and these standard strategies can be used to extend the conceptual understandings of our students -- even in second and third grades. The avoidance of these traditional procedures until fourth and fifth grades serves no purpose in securing a conceptual understanding of mathematics, but does ensure that these traditional procedures are not the primary or fluent method of computation in problem solving for our students.
Regardless of future career choices as adults, the significant learning and education gained through both creative and enjoyable problem-solving tasks are no more important than the significant skills and training gained through mastering efficient procedural tasks.
Our students deserve a complete education in math, and with the positive elements of the TERC program, they can certainly rise to the challenge of mastering the traditional basics with a true understanding of the concepts behind them.
KRISTIN HAGINS
Mt. Lebanon
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/letters-to-editorsouth-672824/
7 comments:
By Michelle Malkin
Published: Sunday, January 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Updated: Sunday, January 27, 2013
America's downfall doesn't begin with the “low-information voter.” It starts with the no-knowledge student.
For decades, collectivist agitators in our schools have chipped away at academic excellence in the name of fairness, diversity and social justice. “Progressive” reformers denounced Western civilization requirements, the Founding Fathers and great books as racist. They replaced time-tested rote techniques and standard algorithms with fuzzy math, inventive spelling and multicultural claptrap.
Under President Obama, these top-down mal-formers are now presiding over a radical makeover of your children's school curriculum. It's being done in the name of federal “Common Core” standards that do anything but raise achievement standards.
Common Core was enabled by Obama's federal stimulus law and his Department of Education's “Race to the Top” gimmickry. The administration bribed cash-starved states into adopting instructional standards as a condition of winning billions of dollars in grants.
In practice, Common Core's dubious college- and career-ready standards undermine local control, usurp state autonomy over curricular materials and foist untested, mediocre and incoherent pedagogical theories on America's schoolchildren.
There's no better illustration of Common Core's duplicitous talk of higher standards than to start with its math “reforms.” While Common Core promoters assert their standards are “internationally benchmarked,” independent members of the expert panel in charge of validating the standards refute the claim.
Panel member Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas reported, “No material was ever provided to the Validation Committee or to the public on the specific college readiness expectations of other leading nations in mathematics” or other subjects.
In fact, Stanford University professor R. James Milgram, the only mathematician on the validation panel, concluded that the Common Core math scheme would place American students two years behind their peers in other high-achieving countries. In protest, Milgram refused to sign off on the standards. He's not alone.
Professor Jonathan Goodman of New York University found that the Common Core math standards imposed “significantly lower expectations with respect to algebra and geometry than the published standards of other countries.”
I cannot sum up the stakes any more clearly than Ze'ev Wurman, a prominent software architect, electrical engineer and longtime math advisory expert in California and Washington, D.C., in his critique of this mess: “I believe the Common Core marks the cessation of educational standards improvement in the United States. No state has any reason left to aspire for first-rate standards, as all states will be judged by the same mediocre national benchmark enforced by the federal government.”
This is all in keeping with my own experience as a parent of elementary- and middle-school-age kids who were exposed to “Everyday Math” nonsense. This and other fads abandon “drill and kill” memorization techniques for fuzzy “critical thinking” methods that put the cart of “why” in front of the horse of “how.”
Common Core is rotten to the core. The corruption of math education is just the beginning.
Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2009).
Read more: http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/3348120-74/standards-core-common#ixzz2JYg3YATI
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
Remely voted for TERC and the R's want to send him to the State Penn, err House.
Two items one for the administration to evaluate the teachers...
Teacher evaluations go high-tech
In his annual letter, Bill Gates is calling for a better system for providing feedback for teachers. In recent years, a growing number of companies have been providing technology designed to help in the process. Along with a focus on using video-based teacher evaluations, a Web-based tool now is available to help organize and analyze teacher feedback. GigaOm (1/30)
The other (once again for those that might have missed it) that allows teachers to evaluate the administration and board...
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121231/NEWS03/312310023/Survey-will-allow-teachers-speak-up
"Delaware public school educators have a new way to make their voices heard with a program starting next month that allows them to give feedback anonymously on conditions at their schools.
Information from an online survey called Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning Delaware will be shared with the public for every school where at least half the educators respond to the survey. State officials say they plan to use the data to make more informed policy and funding decisions.
Delaware joins about 20 other states that are using surveys to determine conditions at schools by asking educators in those buildings to provide feedback. Questions on the survey will seek information on a variety of topics, including school leadership, use of time, new teacher support and professional development."
"It is important for teachers to know that information they provide will be anonymous, Jenner said. There have been many steps taken to ensure that an individual educator’s response can’t be traced back, she said."
The latter would be an excellent way for our teachers that are in the classroom to voice their opinions +/- on the elementary math program, for instance.
Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2009).
Consider that the source is hardly objective!
Fair enough.
What objective materials do you read 4:34?
New York Times?
mtl magazine?
NEA Today?
Ms. Hagins is, by most definitions, a "math teaching professional," holding a Master's Degree in secondary math education. I've been told that she has taught elementary, middle school, high school and college level math. While finding some "positive aspects" in Investigations, she nonetheless advocates for teaching American algorithms along side TERC, starting as early as the second grade. For me, the part of her letter to the P-G that "nails it" is this: "All of the positive aspects of the TERC Investigations program (conceptual foundations, group discussions, problem-solving strategies, mathematical thinking, mathematical literacy and positive disposition) can be incorporated into the teaching of traditional algorithms and fraction computations that include finding common denominators." Of course! How did we come to the conclusion that prior to TERC there was no attempt to teach the "whys" of math as well as the "hows?" For the life of me I think that the people who fall for the exclusive TERC claptrap were all born after 1970!
With respect to the post concerning Michelle Malkin: Her critique of "Common Core" standards with respect to math - and I'll stick to that subject because that's the topic of this thread - will be tested in the course of time. I suspect she is right. I also suspect that what we will see is an "in-house" improvement in our nation's math literacy as students in the fuzzy math programs are tested using "fussy tests," but our International Math standings will continue to drop. And the government "experts" will scratch their heads and wonder why.
Mine of 6:53pm -
Let's change "..using "fussy tests,".." to ..using "fuzzy tests,".." Sorry!
Post a Comment