When I was a child and had a question about my math homework, I was blessed (although probably at the time felt cursed) that both of my parents were Math Majors. On these occasions, my evenings would consist of additional math instruction typically accompanied by the ever familiar discussion over which of them graduated from the more prestigious Jesuit campus of Fordham University. My father claiming he graduated from the ‘real’ Fordham but my mother always held her own in the debate. In hindsight, I recognize that women from my mother’s generation typically did not become engineers but were encouraged to become nurses, teachers, secretaries. But, I digress. What is important is that I was well served by their instruction and encouragement and have since had every math class of an electrical engineer. For a decade, until I decided to stay home with the children, I was a programmer alongside some of the brightest analytical minds from around the globe. But now it’s my turn to take the role as a supplementary instructor to my children with their math homework.
So, I’ll admit when I first became aware of the ‘Math Investigations’ program adopted by the County, I wasn’t overly concerned with the program because my children are bright and the fifth grader would be ‘transitioned’. However, after witnessing the effect this program has had on my children I’m convinced it’s not a productive way to teach math. In fact, I’m convinced someone with a double ‘e’ major has developed it; and I’m not talking about an Electrical Engineer but rather an individual with an Elementary Ed Degree.
I have told this story before but let me repeat it for the edification of everyone. During my sophomore year of college, after my calculus class, where I most likely was working on differential equations or something equally as challenging, I went back to my apartment and found my Elementary Ed roommate cutting out squares and lining them up in rows and columns. She then proceeded to count the squares which completely dumbfounded me because I couldn’t understand why anyone would waste their time with this exercise. When I inquired about why she would bother counting them, she told that she ‘just wanted to make sure’. I remember being somewhat appalled at the time, and thinking that someone like her could one day teach my children math. It must have been a premonition of sorts because it IS exactly this same methodology that is now being used on my children.
My fifth-grader has completely forgotten the traditional way of doing double digit multiplication, instead she draws a crazy square ‘lattice’ . My second-grader is breaking down subtraction problems into ‘number statements’ in multiples of 5’s and 10’s, instead of stacking and subtracting. These added steps confuse and often allow additional opportunities for mistakes which increase the chances of her getting the wrong answer.
These methods are so strange to parents that the county holds classes to teach the parents how the children are doing math. It’s absurd. Then certain board members think that because the parent classes are well attended that the program is a success? No, it’s because the concepts are so foreign that they need to take the class to understand what the heck is going on.
So, tonight, I will attend the Prince William County School Board Meeting at 7pm to speak out in opposition to the ‘Math Investigation’ program. I understand there has been a growing resistance to this curriculum for quite some time and I always thought that the school board would realize the folly of their ways and abandon the instruction. Unfortunately this hasn’t happened. Now, I believe this school board might not realize the detriment of this program until a generation of children have been branded with this tainted methodology.
There have been a couple informational websites developed where more can be learned and there’s a petition that can be signed to show your opposition. Please consider adding your voice to those that believe this curriculm is detrimental to our students.
More information can be found here –
Very interesting MH. I’ve seen bits and pieces about the Math Investigations controversy but didn’t know what the details were as to how math is taught under this program. Sounds strange to me. Many people have enough problems learning math without making it more complicated, which is what this sounds to me. I was lucky that math always came easy to me, which is why I took up Electrical Engineering as a major. Anyway, sounds like this is one math program that needs to be scrapped. Is Math Investigations just taught in PWC or is this a statewide thing? I sort of gather maybe it is just a PWC thing, in which case it definitely needs to be changed.
Sorry, I meant to address this to Alanna instead of MH.
I believe there are other Counties like Loudoun who are voicing opposition. But the program is not mandated by the state nor apparently from what I have read even recommended necessarily for Grade 5.
For a change — something informative from BVBL,
M-H is steering clear of this one. I personally have not seen it taught and I have talked to people I have great respect for who love it and people I have great respect for that hate it.
I believe we have to look at what is best for all children. Drill and kill is no longer an acceptable math practice. The math expectations of those coming along now are far different than were the expectations of those who graduated 20 years ago. Numerical sense does not seem to be an area most of our kids do well in, if SOL scores are any indicator.
What would probably be a deciding factor for me is the delivery system. Are the teachers who teach this program really behind it and doing a good job? Have they bought in to the program? If they haven’t, then why not? Is it their own basic lack of understanding? It seems many. not all, elementary teachers fear math.
Actually, I am going to go with whatever Turn PW Blue has to say. He and I have discussed educational issues before and I know he is knowledgeable about this program. So Turn PW Blue, where are you on this issue?
Oh boy, I remember when “New Math” was introduced in the early 60s. (Tom Lehrer has a wonderful song about it). Kids had to learn to work in base “8” which Lehrer described as “the same as base 10, if you have lost two fingers”.
There were special classes for parents. My husband, a geologist, had a lot of math in his background, and even he couldn’t quite understand the New Math. It died out rather quickly, I might add.
Sometimes I wonder whether text book publishers are behind some of these educational changes.
Wow, something the anti’s and the bvbl crowd agree on….how about that! Alanna, Fordham, I’m green with envy! I wanted to go to Fordham for Medieval Studies (I studied Medieval Ecclesiology). Not complaining, went to Catholic U instead, which was nice, but I always had my eye on Fordham!
MI is different and is going to challenge the “traditional” way we all were taught. But different doesn’t mean better or worse. It means just that–different.
MI is intended to teach a conceptual understanding of math beyond rote memorization of facts. It may seem “silly” to those of us who have completed advanced maths, but the fact that people like your college roommate exist is precisely why MI exists. The idea behind MI is to provide a foundation of basic number sense–what do the digits and symbols *mean*–before going into the mechanics of how to do standard algorithms.
It is actually pretty easy to teach multi-digit addition or multiplication to children. But if they have no concept of what they’ve just done, it’s nothing more than a cheap parlor trick. I’d much rather my child know that multiplying 16 x 24 means I have 16 sets of 24 items than have them be able to get the “correct” answer with no concept of what that answer means. MI attempts to provide that conceptual framework.
Do I think MI is perfect? No. The complete eschewing of traditional algorithms and the use of unfamiliar vocabulary for the sake of being “different” from “traditional” math is problematic. But from what I’ve seen in my children’s classrooms, their teachers are doing a great job following the MI structure while supplementing where appropriate. Contrary to the hype, my daughter is allowed to use traditional algorithms and she knows her multiplication tables (though we never drilled and killed her–she learned them using number charts and factor table a la MI).
I will note that lots of the people who struggle with understanding MI never really had any problem with math. We are a lucky minority when you look at test and research data. Our brains are wired differently than most and math comes to us easily. For the vast majority, traditional methods of the past left them out in the cold when it came to really understanding math.
Huh? Old blog and new blog agree? The “We Are One” idea is coming to fruition. Alanna, I had no idea you were such a math wiz on top of a computer wiz.
This is just a little too much ” We are One” if you ask me. 😉
Thank you TPWB, for your explanation and insight into the program. As I stated earlier, while I haven’t seen the program implemented, I trust and respect TPWB’s opinion and judgement. I also know he has a strong math background and comes from a household of teachers.
My daughter’s second grade teacher told the students that she couldn’t teach a particular method and that it would be better to “ask your parents”. That’s surely not supplementing. It’s abandoning a proven traditional method in favor of an ‘investigation, in number, data and space’.
2+2 will always equal 4. How many different ways can we explain this? I suppose there’s a million different ways but is it worth investigating them? Probably not.
In terms of parlor tricks, I predict the lattice method will make circus freaks out of our kids. Imagine a work environment where coworkers each grab a pen to figure out the answer to a straightforward multiplication problem. Then imagine one out of the group begins by drawing a square with horizontal and diagonal lines. It will probably make for some lively discussions with my child having to explain her process to everybody around. Also, I’ve read that it’s so non-traditional that transfer students are baffled by it.
As a newly certified English and US History teacher I was logically charged with
teaching New Math to 7th graders nearly four decades ago. May God forgive
me for the damage that was done. Hopefully, those middle age folks can
balance their checkbooks — without Boolean algebra. It was a fad that sold
some textbooks and assured parents the school system was “doing something”
about low math test scores, but it did more damage than good. May I suggest
caution as you move forward.
A quick voice of dissent here….I like MI. My fourth grader thrived with it the last two years. Now, her school barely uses MI and we’re having the same math homework battles I had w/ my older children. I attended many, many parent and teacher MI work shops over the past two years, and I was impressed by Carol Knight’s efforts to get the word out there about MI: why it works, and how to help your children during the transition. Honestly, my child transitioned easily. She was understanding math concepts on a level her older sibs NEVER understood in elementary school. I raved about the program to the teacher and principals.
And then the backlash started and I fear MI is destined for the dust heap. It’s really too bad. Now, my fourth grader says math is her worst subject and she hates it. That’s a 180 degree turn from where she was this time last year. She got a perfect score on the third grade SOL, btw.
My other daughter, a HS senior who attended PWC schools (three of the best), and learned math the “old way,” has had a weekly math tutor since third grade. Yes, third grade. She’s taken college prep math courses all four years of HS, and she hates it. A B is a high achievement in those courses, not easily met. She hates math and can’t wait for the day when she is finished with math for good. That’s very, very sad.
She would have thrived under the MI curriculum.
Alanna:
The central office Math Department has done a poor job with communication when it comes to supplementing and what *is* and *isn’t* “allowed.” The MI materials don’t explicitly cover the standard US algorithm and there is a warning not to introduce “shortcuts” like the standard algorithms *before* there is the conceptual understanding the underlies the math in the standard algorithm. But there is nothing that says that a teacher *can’t* teach something when the child is ready for it.
I think a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that, let’s face it, many elementary school teachers are like your college roommate–baffled by math themselves. You state that 2+2 will always equal 4 and that is, indeed, correct. But what does that equation represent? Two of something plus two of something add up to make four of something. Seems simple but there really are people who have no concept of that meaning behind the equation. They memorized that 2+2 always equals four but don’t get the *why*. How about the concept behind borrowing for multi-digit subtraction? Lots of people know how to do it, but really don’t understand that the digit to the left represents 10x the digit you’re looking at. The point of “investigating” is to build that fundamental understanding of mathematics as processes and logic, not because there isn’t a simpler way to come up with the right answer to the problem in front of you. It’s analogous to the old saw about giving someone a fish or teaching them to fish. It’s a lot easier to give them the fish, but what have they done to learn to sustain themselves in the long haul? I would much rather our children understand what is going on process-wise starting with simple equations than have them be able to compute complex numbers with no understanding of what they are doing outside of a mechanical process. That fundamental number sense is what is going to make them successful in more advanced, abstract mathematics like algebra and calculus. In terms of the learning process, the type of work done in MI actually uses a different part of the brain than the more traditional drill and memorization we grew up with. Not coincidentally, MI tries to stimulate learning in the same part of the brain that is used for higher level problem solving and computation like that found in algebra.
Last year, my daughter had an assignment that opponents of MI love to slam. She was asked to determine which was greater, 9 X 5 or 6 X 9. Now, traditionalists would say, easy. 9 X 5 is 45, 6 X 9 is 54, 54 is greater than 45, 6 X 9 is greater. Done. Move on to the next problem. This was early on in the year, so the class had not completely learned their multiplication tables. My daughter looked at the problem and said that 6 X 9 is the same as 9 X 6. With the problem rewritten, she then said having 6 sets of the same thing is more than having 5 sets of the same thing. 9 X 6 is greater. Her answer took longer and was certainly not efficient. However, using the MI method, she demonstrated an understanding of what multiplication really means and demonstrated the commutative property of multiplication–a foundation of algebra.
I agree that the lattice method seems a bit silly, but it’s only *one* method for solving a problem (and if it’s being presented as the only method, then the teacher isn’t teaching it right). Again, when you look at surveys of elementary teachers, many will say that math was their worst subject and part of the reason they were drawn to elementary versus high school education was precisely to avoid the complexities of math that confused them as students. These are people who by and large were more comfortable with times tables and worksheets with printed answer keys. MI challenges not only the students to think critically about mathematics as a skill, but also requires a different level and type of knowledge on the part of the teachers. One thing PWC Schools needs to do better is prepare the teachers for teaching MI.
I think casual observer’s anecdotal evidence is exactly why a program like MI is needed. Too many of our students struggle with math. My mother-in-law was a math teacher and math specialist in Fairfax County (before a stint as a middle school assistant principal then retirement). After reviewing the MI work my daughter was doing she said she was finally hopeful that someday when she told people that she taught math for many years she’d hear something other than “oh, I really hated math” or “math was my worst subject” or “I never really understood math.” Students who excel at math will still be challenged by MI as there are many opportunities for enrichment and more advanced work. Students who struggled in the past with more traditional approaches to math, though, are suddenly finding that math isn’t something to be feared and it really is something that can be understood.
PWC Blue: Excellent analysis. Thank you for putting this so much better than I did. 🙂 I cannot tell you how thrilled I was with MI when my D started it in second grade, before it became a political football. Honestly, when did a math curriculum become conservative or liberal?
If the “old way” of learning math worked, our kids wouldn’t lag behind the rest of the world in middle school and high school math scores.
Kids today need to understand HOW numbers work. Our new technologies demand that level of understanding. They weren’t getting that through rote memorization of math facts. My youngest D, courtesy of MI in second and third grade was actually playing with numbers, and wasn’t afraid to figure out different approaches to the same answer. An approach, I’m sorry to say, that led many proponents to the conclusion that MI is fuzzy, or just about math games. If I could have had you all in my home when my D was doing purely MI homework, you’d all see what I mean. She was having fun with math, yes, but she was developing such a good sense of number theory — which is really the foundation of algebra.
I can’t overstate how saddened I am that MI — should it even remain in PWC schools after tonight — is destined to become so watered down to the point where I think those teachers who can’t or won’t learn how to teach MI will feel they have permission to abandon in it. I’m afraid this has already happened in my D’s fourth grade class.
I hope the Board allows parents to choose an MI or Traditional track for their children — with that option available in EVERY school. There are some teachers in our school who love MI, and I hope they can continue to teach it the way it is meant to be taught. That’s the math program I would choose for my child.
Casual Observer:
What elementary do your kids attend that MI isn’t being taught? I thought it was mandated at all schools?
There are parts of it that I think are good for younger children but as an entire curriculum, I find it lacking. When I watched the school board meeting in the fall with that Math teacher from Fairfax of over 35 years who had been on some national math panel and that guy said he’d throw MI in the trashcan under his desk, I knew there was a problem.
I have to completely agree with Alanna’s observations and that is what I’ve seen with my younger kids. There will always be kids in a family that do excellent in math and those who struggle. Out of my 5, 3 appear to be math whizzes, 2 of the 3 whizzes had no MI. The other two will probably require tutoring at upper levels of math, 1 of the 2 is MI and the other had no MI , although I don’t think anecdotal evidence is sufficient for the school board to make a decision. Same family, same genes, but different results with MI.
The proof needs to be in the testing. Did SOLs go up last year in the grades that had MI? NO, they didn’t and pass advanced percentages went down. That says to me that MI is isn’t as terrific as the school board would like us to believe.
Offer a choice and that should quiet people like Alanna and myself. We’ll be happy with our kids in traditional. Then in 5 years look at test scores and compare all MI kids with traditional kids. If the MI kids do substantially better over all, the MI lovers will have their proof and they can shut down choice. If traditional kids do substantially better then MI will likely fade away with other new so called great education ideas like “open concept classes” which the county just spent millions closing up into closed classrooms.
Being able to multiply using lattice multiplication is not the desired outcome of MI. It is an alternative method of mulitiplication that was used before the modern printing press was able to set up the format we now see when multiplying 2 or more digits. It is an excellent method of teaching students with spacial difficulties, for what that’s worth.
On the other hand, it is better to remember something than nothing. Most adults would go get a calculator nowadays. Remember that hand held calculators were not even affordable until the early 70s.
Most students are very weak in number sense. Many cannot tell what is greater: 1/8 or 2/5 just at a glance. Most either get a calculator or computer to decimal form just to answer a question that is part should be intuitive. Estimation skills are weak. Not enough students take upper level math classes beyond what is required for a diploma because they lack concept understanding, not calculation skills.
Any old fool can go buy a $5 calculator at Target and become excellent at calculations. That is not what our students need. Our students need to understand mathematical concepts before they begin to process algorithms.
Madmom, MI hasn’t been around long enough to collect solid data on its use. 1 year is insufficient to evaluate the success or failure of a program, especially using testing tools like the SOL test which is not a good evaluator of higher level thinking skills.
Have you seen grades 6, 7 at the middle school level under traditional math instruction? It is HORRIBLE. There are schools with a 13% pass rate. Unacceptable. Most middle schools in Virginia have not made acceptable progress because of 6th and 7th grade math scores. This problem did not start in 6th or 7th grades. It started down in 1st grade and worked its way up.
I remember growing up with the traditional math system of rote memorization of math facts and I was utterly lost. Not only could I not picture what 4×4 looked like, I struggled to remember that 4×4=16. Those timed tests in math class reduced me to tears. I was a constant finger counter, and eventually I developed a system for myself that was later dubbed as “Touch Math” (though I’m pretty sure that I invented it). To this day, if I have to add a long column of figures without benefit of a calculator, I use the touchmath method. I struggled with addition, subtraction, multiplication, and the oh so dreaded long division…especially when there were remainders. However, some bright spots in my elementary math experiences was the ease of which I learned fractions, time and money. I am one of the few people that can count back change to someone:) High school math: Alg1, Geom, Alg II, nearly killed me, and required constant tutoring. I was never so lost. Yet, when I was in college I had to take 2 semesters of statistical research methods and I found it to be quite understandable. My sister, the math genius, says that I grasp math which my brain finds “applicable”. Abstract math (ie algebra), is more difficult for me, because I cannot “see the picture”, according to my sister. I would have probably benefited from MI. But I don’t think that there should be an either/or form of teaching math. A well-rounded curriculum should encompass both MI and the traditional math learning methods. That way, students who learn differently, those who see the forest and those who see the trees, and those with certain learning disabilities can all find a way to be successsful in math. Years after I graduated from college, I signed up to take the Praxis exam for my license. I bought the study guide and freaked out when I got to the math section because once again the algebra felt like Greek. Luckily for me, my sister broke down the questions for me, and put it in “real terms” as far as I was concerned: When the problem states this question, then you use this formula. For the first time EVER I aced an algebra test. Go figure. By the way, those of you with middle school girls…UVA has a professor who is offering a girls and math summer enrichment course for girls in grades 6-8. There are also many other summer enrichment courses in math and engineering and science for students grades 4-11, as well as other courses such as literature and drama. See the UVA website for details.
Just trying to imagine having
a child in the FLIT program!
DS, many people feel just as you have. Thank you for sharing the other side of the issue with us. Let’s face it, most people are not ‘math people.’ Most people don’t have math people parents to help them. MI needs to be here for those who might need to use alternative methods to grasp the concepts.
What’s really interesting is when you actually talk to people who are good at math (and really just *get* math), you’ll find that many of them, consciously or not, are employing the very methods MI endeavors to teach to all children. I did well in mathematics (completing through advanced college calculus). As I work with my children on their homework, I find that I had already naturally incorporated many of the “new” MI strategies in my daily life. I have always skip counted. I have always broken numbers apart when doing multiplication in my head (142 x 16 is 140 x 10 + 140 x 6 + 16 x2). I often change a number to make a problem easier (142 x 16 is 150 x 16 – 16 x 8). And so on. These are things that came to me naturally. But for lots of people, math is not something innately obvious.
As for the math panel in the fall, I was on that panel as well. I had the opportunity to have dinner before hand with all of the participants (with the exception of Mr. Vern Williams–the teacher from Fairfax referred to by MadMomof5–who had another commitment prior to the math panel and couldn’t make the early dinner). Dr. Skip Fennel, who also served on the National Math Advisory Panel, was also part of the panel. Funny how no one remembers him–guess it’s because he didn’t seem to have an issue with MI. The conversation over dinner centered on the desire of all those present to make math accessible and “learnable” to a larger cohort of students.
The point is that there are “experts” on both sides of this issue. Interestingly, it is those entrenched in the elite class of mathematicians who find issue with MI and have been some of the most vocal opponents. That is not surprising. They learned and thrived doing things the “old” way–it worked for them, so shouldn’t it work for everyone? But with all deference to the Wilfred Schmids and R. James Milgrams of the world, elementary mathematics is not cutting-edge research mathematics. We would be well-served by having those involved in the teaching of elementary and middle school students (and who understand human cognition as well as mathematics) involved in designing a math curriculum that builds a strong foundation so that once those students get to Dr. Schmid’s or Dr. Milgram’s graduate classes solving multi-dimensional differential equations, there may be more than a handful of them. Being an expert in complex mathematics does not make one an expert in how to teach those same concepts (or the foundational elements that support those concepts) to someone else. I think K. Patricia Cross (a noted educational researcher) put it pretty succinctly:
Slowpoke, what is Medieval Ecclesiology? It sounds interesting but I am clueless here. My brother is an Medieval English specialist, whatever that is. I think it means he can read Beowulf but I am not sure. duh me.
I am not sure of MI, but when I purchase something for say, 7.92, and handover 8.02, I love the face of the (well past the MI age) clerk when they think, and what do I do with the two cents.
I agree DB, a well rounded curriculum, but from what I have heard, well rounded is NOT be implemented school wide when it comes to the marriage if MI with traditional methods.
Slowpoke,
I too am intrigued!
Hey my grandfather went to
Fordham at the height of the late 1920’s. He was a law graduate during the depression. He turned his law degree into a Latin teaching degree for the Youth House of the Bronx..aka reform school. He continued teaching for Youth House until his retirement in 1970. Lee harvey Oswald at one point was in his Latin class.
Well Pat you give them a dime in change.
Elena,
Is there trully a difference between MI and the state sponsored TTACs for math? Do the lessons from the TTACs really copy from the Math Their Way curriculum of the 80’s or am I just dreaming? Doesn’t even the entire MI curriculum some how smack of Math their Way mixed with m-n-m’s when it’s brought down into it’s tiniest components. Aren’t we really paying school-wise just for some recycled math phase from either the 60’s, or the metric system we all failed or the early 80’s? Are math curriculums that easy to copy?
Well, it’s midnight and no decision as of yet. Check for an update in the am.
Real quick though. I was very disheartened to hear comments from teachers that either directly or indirectly suggested that parents were somehow unqualified participants in their childrens educational experience.
Parents are qualified to make math decision about their own children. However, I do not think most can see the big picture for an entire curriculum that reaches all children. I will go so far as to say most teachers cannot make that determination.
Alanna:
I don’t think there can be any “decision” on this immediately. Chairman Johns posted this as an Info item, not an Action item on the Board agenda.
I don’t think anyone really is saying that parents are not qualified to be part of their children’s educational experience, but what people are saying is that public schools have to have the interest of all the students in mind *and* that professional educators *are* more qualified to make some types of decisions concerning the educational process as a whole. Just as I don’t think the guy in row 2B should fly the plane (but has every right to demand he makes to his destination on time and safely), I do believe that there are times we should afford teachers and educators some respect for their knowledge and expertise.
Too bad that geat master educator Professor Letiecq now feels he is in the driver’s seat on what math programs are taught. You could see that the school board was unimpressed with his desire to control.
Too bad Mr. Richardson and Mr. Lattin talked back to the great Professor L. They will be in his sites now. Let the assassinations of their character and job skills begin.
Mr. Richardson is apparently more observant than our BOCS. He recognized cut and paste from the I hate Investigations website. Our BOCS sure didn’t recognize it from the FAIR emailers who couldn’t find Prince William County on a map if you held a gun to their heads. Maybe Mr. Richardson will replace Mr. S. Oh wait, I forgot, Mr. S was behind the entire FAIR mass emailing….or at least he knew about it since he is a member of HSM.
To turnPWblue; trouble is we want to go to California and they are flying the plane towards Santa’s workshop at the North Pole or to Fantasy Island.
50% of teachers disagreed in the counties own survey that MI meets their needs.
You don’t hear from them because they are afraid of getting fired.
The math department don’t want a choice because 1. if word gets out, most will opt for the traditional choice and 2. their pet program will look bad because the parents with the math gifted kids are the ones clamoring for more challenge.
Jake,
Elena actually clapped after Mr. Letiecq spoke. I liked Milt Johns comments but I wasn’t impressed with either Lattin or Richardson.
Thank you Ed for joining the conversation. I for one appreciate you and the other parents for taking a stand. I was appalled to read the comments made by Grant Lattin at the last school board meeting. And, more disturbing are some of the comments being made by teachers or perhaps administrators that suggest parents somehow aren’t qualified.
You’re welcome; it was a late night but we finally got to hear how most on the board felt.
I think if the program had been implemented with more balance and challenge, we wouldn’t be here but they blew it.
They swallowed the TERC line about dangerous short-cut algorithms hook line and sinker and are now trying to regain some balance to appease those who noticed that it isn’t working.
At this point, it is too little, too late. They are too biased to investigations to listen to reason.
Some of the investigations alternative strategies are valid; I love the changing the numbers approach when the numbers merit it but if you spend all your time trying to remember which strategy works best, you’re not going to finish the test.
MI doesn’t ever encourage efficiency or provide enough practice for mastery.
If the life work is 2 simple math questions, you’re never going to get proficient.
I tend to look to the words of experts and those in the math industry when gathering data regarding a program of instruction. With regards to Math Investigations there are legions of research indicating that the program poorly prepares our children for higher mathematics.
You might also want to start by checking out the work of Dr Stephen Wilson, Professor of Mathematics at JHU, Author of the Fordham Foundation Review or Mathematics Curricula, adviser to the US DOE on mathematics curricula standards, and member of the groups revising Washington State’s mathematics standards. I think it’s pretty safe to say that this guy knows what he’s talking about when it comes the math. Dr Wilson has reviewed MI’s content. His conclusion, which was presented in testimony before the Frederick Md School board in June, can be summarized by one statement
“I am not really here today to talk to the Board, but to the parents. If your child goes to a school that uses TERC Investigations, you should understand that it means your child’s school has abdicated its responsibility to teach your child mathematics. By doing so, the responsibility now rests with the parents. Good luck.”
Here’s a link to his web site with more information http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/
Another spot to check out is Dr. Bill Quirk’s, Phd in mathematics from Cornell, assessments of MI against the NMP recommendations and reviews of it’s content appropriateness. Among his conclusions are:
“NMP 2008 is very clear about the foundations of algebra. Mastery of standard arithmetic is essential. Mastery isn’t possible without practice. TERC provides no practice for standard arithmetic. ”
“TERC promotes “mental math” methods and the use of calculators. They offer one “general” whole number computational strategy for addition, subtraction, and multiplication. Relative to the standard algorithms, TERC’s alternative methods more openly reveal underlying place value details. The price for this “transparency” benefit is significantly reduced computational efficiency. The TERC alternatives also reduce the need for carrying and borrowing. But TERC is not satisfied with reducing the need, they want elimination of the need. The price for this “total avoidance of carrying and borrowing” benefit is significantly reduced generality. TERC must carefully limit to special case problems to achieve this objective. As we’ve noted above, TERC doesn’t want to admit the special case limits, so we get the suppression of the embarrassing carrying and borrowing details. We also see borrowing avoided by the premature introduction of negative numbers and integer arithmetic. Somehow these advanced concepts are easier than the important concepts of carrying and borrowing. ”
Here’s a link to his site : http://www.wgquirk.com/
And if that’s not enough, check out this site form more research and information from groups across the country fighting to bring sanity back to their children’s education.
http://www.nychold.com/terc.html
Correction – Dr Quirk did not attend Cornell – he is a graduate of Dartmouth College and holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from The New Mexico State University. Over a span of 8 years, he taught 26 different courses in math and computer science at Penn State, Northern Illinois University, and Jacksonville University.
Dr. Quirk? Is this a joke?
Academic educators will always disagree. They always have. They always will.
No joke; he’s very knowledgeable as is Dr Wilson from JHU.
Yes they will always disagree; point is at least 50% of the parents and teachers also think MI is not sufficient but that’s doesn’t seem to be enough to force a change.
http://www.wgquirk.com/TERC.html
Nope – that’s his real name! Poor guy – I’m sure he got a lot of teasing when he was a kid.
I posted the links to provide people with information they might not otherwise find unless they were searching for it so that they could draw their own conclusions.
Where is the data that 50% of the parents and teachers think MI is not sufficient? I cannot imagine how that data would even be gathered. Please explain.
Thank you for the link.
From the Prince William County schools math survey. Page 4 in the following document:
http://www.pwcsmath.com/Investigations/Program%20Evaluations/MathInvestigationsYear2ReportFinal.pdf
Why the school board said they didn’t realize opposition was so strong, I have no idea. This was presented to them in September.
This survey went out to a fairly large number (I think 2000 parents) but they only got responses from 18% of parents. They claim that it was a large enough sample to be statistically valid.
One of the ways TERC tries to appease complaints is the “we’re listening” approach. If parents get to respond to a survey, they think their complaints will be listened to.
But of course, they are just parents not “educators”.
“I cannot imagine how that data would even be gathered.”
And therein lies the problem, apart from the petition there is little more than anecdotal evidence. I’m not saying the discontent does not exist but that it is nearly impossible to demonstrate empirically.
That having been said, the condescending and dismissive attitude of several Board members (including my own) is unacceptable. I would wager a fair sum that Mr. Richardson would not address me in the manner he addressed the public last night were I to support their assertions most of which I have witnessed first hand.
Until last night I had a fair amount of respect for Mr. Richardson (although I had considerably less for Mr. Lattin), I can not say the same now and intend to speak with him on the subject. I have come to expect (and have gotten) similar treatment from Ms. Knight, I will not tolerate it from an elected official, particularly one I supported (note the past-tense).
Communication, cooperation and respect are generally two-way streets, if Mr. Richardson believes that opinions of the residents can be so easily dismissed, then perhaps it is time he found out what real opposition is at the ballot box. I will have to sit back and think about that one for awhile (I really hate the drive down to their offices).
If you see my previous link, you’ll find the evidence. The most telling is that only 33% of 3rd grade teachers were satisfied. Yes, it’s the first time they have taught it but it is very telling of how dumbed down this thing is; it is not challenging enough and is less appropriate, the higher you get.
Jake,
Last night was odd. The first 20 or more speakers, who supported the Math Investigations program said things like thanks for inviting me. It left me wondering did they receive an email asking them to come speak on the matter? For example, the Principal of Alvey Elementary School who has been a teacher for 25-30 years said she never before spoke at a school board meeting and mentioned something about an invitation to speak. Curious.
Also, it struck me that this was ‘Citizen’s Time’, normally at Supervisor’s Meetings paid staff do not offer their opinions about County policy. Additionally, those that reside outside of the County are usually delegated to speaking after County residents not before. It seemed as if the deck was stacked, with teachers (some rather condescending, I might add) speaking in favor of the curriculum.
I’m going to see if I can somehow capture the video from those teachers or administrators that made me immediately start thinking – ‘CRAP, I’m going to have to homeschool my kids.’ Again, I’m pleased that Milt Johns addressed this attitude.