New math plan comes to fruitionBy Ed Mahon
Jul 22, 2011
State College Area elementary students will have a new main math program this fall.
The change is more than two years in the making.
“Now comes the real hard work. We have to implement a new math program,” said Radio Park Elementary School Principal Deirdre Bauer, who served on a committee that reviewed curriculums. “But it’s also very exciting.”
The State College Area school board earlier this month approved purchasing the materials for the new program, Math Expressions, which educators have described as having a more balanced approach than the previous curriculum, Investigations in Number, Data and Space.
“The community group really wanted to have a (program) that would be able to maintain some of the conceptual strengths of Investigations but also provide some more direct instruction,” Bauer said.
In May 2009, parents unhappy with Investigations created an online petition and urged board members not to purchase the second edition of the program. They argued it didn’t provide enough rigor and wouldn’t prepare students for later grades.
The board was split, and members voted 6 -3 to purchase the second edition.
A year later, the district created a committee, with about 40 members, to review district math programs with the goal of piloting some new ones in 2010-11. Facilitator Mark Dietz said the committee met 12 times, edited 140 online documents and exchanged more than 1,000 electronic communications before recommending the district pilot three math programs this winter and spring: Math Expressions, enVision math and the second edition of Investigations.
Bauer and two other administrators presented the results of the pilot program to the school board on May 23.
Teachers reviewing materials ranked Math Expressions highest, because it aligned most closely with the K-12 Common Core Standards adopted by more than 40 states. Teachers who taught two units of the programs ranked enVision math the lowest, and Math Expressions and Investigations almost evenly. For student performance on assessments, Investigations ranked highest overall, but performance varied by grade level. Results from parent surveys were similar for all programs.
“It was really difficult to see a program strongly emerge,” Marybeth Irvin, district director of curriculum for kindergarten through eighth grade, told the board. She noted, however, that “enVision was rated weakest overall.”
Bauer said the committee recommended Math Expressions, in part, because of its alignment with the Common Core Standards and because community members asked for a balanced approach.
Irvin described Math Expressions as the district’s new “core resource,” saying it won’t be the entire math curriculum. Teachers will supplement it with other materials as needed.
Teacher and parent Sheila Abruzzo, who served on review committees, called both Investigations and Math Expressions “adequate” and suggested more time to study the issue.
“I think we need an excellent program,” she told the board.
Parents Barb Schaefer and Steve Piazza, both early critics of Investigations who served on the committee, spoke in support of Math Expressions.
“I think what we’re hearing is people .... damning this curriculum with faint praise,” Piazza said, adding that he believes Math Expressions stood out among the three choices.
The board unanimously endorsed the program in May.
“I have watched you guys work through this amazing amount of material over the past year or more. ... and wonder if you can ever pull this all together,” Vice President Jim Pawelczyk said to Bauer, Irvin and Director of Education Pam Francis. “And you did it in grand style. This is a very comprehensive report. ... So, excellent job.”
Ed Mahon can be reached at 231-4619.
STATE EMPLOYEE UNION CONTRACTS
Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/06/25/2799073/new-math-plan-comes-to-fruition.html#ixzz1dJVRf9Oc
Copyright ©2009 - 2011
What is the Mt. Lebanon School Board's take-away from this petition? Some parents are complaining they can't help their children with their math homework, so those parents want the District to pull the program.
The District doesn't get it. Like the State College Area parents, our parents feel that the children are years behind children from other school districts. They are not prepared for later grades. Children are getting caught in the middle. Parents are trying to help their children learn long division, while teachers are saying that homework is being done incorrectly. Children are using separate pieces of paper to do their homework. That is insane!
Our children are getting frustrated and don't know who to believe. The District should talk with Dr. Irwin. She just went through it. According to the District, only six parents complained, but the petition proved them wrong. The District may be the math professionals, but parents know their children best.
The presentation is Monday evening at the Jefferson Middle School Library. I hope the School District will be receptive to these concerned parents.
The District doesn't get it. Like the State College Area parents, our parents feel that the children are years behind children from other school districts. They are not prepared for later grades. Children are getting caught in the middle. Parents are trying to help their children learn long division, while teachers are saying that homework is being done incorrectly. Children are using separate pieces of paper to do their homework. That is insane!
Our children are getting frustrated and don't know who to believe. The District should talk with Dr. Irwin. She just went through it. According to the District, only six parents complained, but the petition proved them wrong. The District may be the math professionals, but parents know their children best.
The presentation is Monday evening at the Jefferson Middle School Library. I hope the School District will be receptive to these concerned parents.
12 comments:
So rather than the district talking to parents why don't they talk with parents and exchange information as suggested...
Anonymous said...
9:24 thinking about your post and the suggested TERC video, plus Neil Berch's suggestion that we should demand answers, here's an idea.
I have absolutely no idea of who's right on this topic so why don't we bring Dr. Steinhauer and/or his designated second and say Richard Gideon or an anti-TERC [parent] representative together in a unscripted debate over the subject.
With Mr. Berch, considering his debating credentials as moderator.
Shouldn't INVESTIGATIONS be able to stand up to investigations?
January 12, 2013 at 12:15 PM"
"For student performance on assessments, Investigations ranked highest overall, but performance varied by grade level."
This is the critical sentence in the article that parents need to understand. It is not about whether parents understand the new math, it is all about student performance on the assessment tests.
Right or wrong, this is what education in the USA has become.
Mr. Franklin has more signatures for turf than Lebomathfacts. Sorry, but I don't think either one of these issues is worthy of my re$ource$.
Why do parents have to stand up to the District to correct a problem ? Have math teachers not been aware of problems with TERC Investigations since it was instituted ? Have they not informed Dr. Allen of any concerns ? Lets find that out - ask the teachers. Or, have they been muzzled ?
Make sure Steinhauer is wearing his hardhat on Jan. 21 telling the assembled how the new bricks and mortar will solve any deficiency associated with the 21st. century TERC math program when the K-5 students reach the high school.
What exactly is the "problem" that exists?
Is the problem simply that some parents don't understand the new math program, so it must be wrong?
11:58 exactly the reason for the debate idea.
Parents believe "it's wrong" so what is wrong with them presenting their evidence and the school district proving to the parents they're wrong.
What's wrong with investigating INVESTIGATIONS?
I have read the research studies on TERC Investigations and have come to the following conclusion: Investigations does not appear to be particularly harmful, nor does it appear to be particularly effective. There are likely to be better choices.
But I can see why school administrators end up buying things like Investigations. The research on elementary mathematics curricula is scant, while the marketing is abundant. Unless you ignore the marketing and read the research, you’ll probably get the wrong picture.
In more detail:
There is little evidence to support the idea that Investigations is “better” than traditional approaches to teaching mathematics. TERC’s web site would have you believe that Investigations is the future of mathematics education, but if you actually read the controlled intervention studies that the marketing materials refer to, you’ll find that Investigations had little, if any, effect on standardized test scores. And if these are the studies that TERC uses for marketing, the full body of evidence is not likely to be so charitable.
Indeed, in only other intervention studies that I found ([1] and [2]), the findings were that Investigations was less effective for first graders than two other tested curricula (Math Expressions and Saxon). For second graders, Investigations was again less effective, but not to the point where the sample size allowed the difference to be statistically significant. (Other grades were not tested.)
Bottom line: There’s little reason to believe that Investigations is an improvement over traditional options. But there is reason to believe that it’s expensive for schools, confusing for parents, and troubling for many college professors. There are likely to be better options.
[1] Achievement Effects of Four Early
Elementary School Math Curricula (US Department of Education, 2009)
[2] Achievement Effects of Four Early
Elementary School Math Curricula: Findings for First and Second Graders (US Department of Education, 2010)
As is usual Tom offers up compelling evidence. Thanks TM.
Thanks Tom. I'll draw my conclusion after I hear from both sides.
Two studies is not "compelling evidence" from my perspective, but I appreciate your efforts.
It should be an interesting meeting.
In the discussions of math programs mentioned in the studies adduced by Mr. Moertel I was disappointed to see that one of the more successful approaches to teaching math at the elementary level was not mentioned: Singapore Math. The New York Times of 30 September 2010 had an interesting article titled "Singapore Math Adopted in More U.S. Schools." While adopting a visual approach to teaching math, the Singapore method does not abandon traditional algorithms and exercises that reinforce basic concepts. "Drill" is part of the program, but kids get to see how numbers add, subtract, multiply, and divide, making the facts they need to know easier to memorize.
Singapore kids are constantly rated at either #1 or #2 in the world when it comes to math. Personally, I like the original Singapore Math book; not the "sanitized" U.S. version. But either one is a vast improvement over Investigations.
3:50 unless Elaine's incorrect in her post - you may want to pay close attention to be sure you hear both sides.
"Next Monday, the School District will be presenting their findings for the TERC Investigations math program."
If they hold parents to 4 minute presentations or questions you might not.
To the anonymous author who commented on January 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM:
If you consider a mere two studies “not compelling,” you should be aware that Pearson Education is citing only one randomized intervention study of Investigations, 2nd ed., to support its marketing claims. And Pearson paid for this study.
Nevertheless, if you examine the study’s findings, you probably won’t be impressed. In early elementary testing, Investigations could not be said to have any effect on test performance (see [1], pg. 8). In later elementary testing, the effects were mixed: in one grade students did slightly better; in another, slightly worse (pg. 9).
(Thought experiment: Imagine that Investigations is everything that Pearson’s marketing says it is. Are these the results you would expect?)
I can understand your wanting to hear from “both sides” before drawing any conclusions. But please be aware that most of what you’ll hear, probably from both sides, will be unreliable as evidence. Be careful.
If you want to know how well something works – for real – measure it. And that’s what randomized intervention studies do. All the other things you’re likely to hear about – the marketing claims, the impressive endorsements, the “smart thinking” that went into the box – as evidence they’re virtually worthless.
To the extent that those things matter, they are already fully accounted for in the actual results. Which we can measure. And have.
So look to the intervention studies and be very careful about the rest.
[1] Pearson Research Overview: Investigations, 2nd ed. “Latest Research.”
Post a Comment