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 –
I’m with you Alanna – my concern with Investigations has always been that it provides students with a multiple different strategies for solving problems with insufficient practice to master any of them. And the only strategies Investigations specifically excludes are the standard algorithms, which are the only processes which are both efficient and effective no matter how complicated the equation.
Part of the reason I support the opt in for traditional math is out of respect for parents, some of whom have posted above, who believe Investigations is sufficient for their children. I just happen to disagree and believe that it is not academically rigorous enough to provide the skills my children need. I don’t want to take anything away from anyone, but I think my children deserve the same right to learn as do their children.
An alternate track would provide parents with the power to choose how their children are taught mathematics and with what materials. If you choose Investigations for your children then great, they will be taught with Investigations. And if you choose an alternate program for your children then they will be taught with alternate materials.
I’m sorry but they are bullies. Any teacher who didn’t teach their way was in deep you know what. They have eased up because they have had to but that’s how Dr W works and the attitude comes down from the top.
Casual observer, I’m glad it works for you; we are asking for a choice not the elimination of MI. The math dept will not listen to people who are in the real world doing complex calculations on a day to day basis. I do use a calculator when doing hex arithmetic but most conventional arithmetic I do in my head or with the standard algorithms.
If MI included practice with more problems, it wouldn’t be so bad.
If it didn’t make such ridiculous statements about the dangers of standard algorithms, it wouldn’t be so bad.
Why are they so afraid of giving us a choice that they bully dozens of teachers into turning up at a board meeting in their free time; most said “thanks for inviting me”. It was citizen comment time not an invitation; who invited them? The whole thing stunk.
The opening parent said something along the lines of ‘thanks for inviting me back’. Really? Also, if I didn’t say it before at Supervisor’s Meetings the public is not subject to the impressions of their staff. Why were there teachers from outside the County speaking at ‘Citizens Time’?
If they were from outside, that is not allowed without permission from the board.
The opening parent was in support of MI so who did all the inviting?
It really was ridiculous.
Why are the math dept. afraid of offering choice?
I’m not absolutely sure, but I believe the teachers who spoke were all also PWC residents.
From what I’ve heard the inviting was email directive sent from the PWCS central office staff to Principals and forwarded from there “inviting” teachers to speak in defense of Investigations. There were even coordinated efforts to get the students to sign banners stating ‘I Love Math Investigations” and reports of Principals appealing to the students to tell their parents how much they love Investigations. I’ve heard rumors that at one school the teachers who spoke at the board meeting were given a casual dress Friday while the other teachers were told they could not wear jeans.
The math people in central office are not bullies. On the other hand, they have been charged with the duty of planning the best way to teach the curriculum. This is where the debate is…what is the best way. The math supervisor and her staff look at all 13 years of public math instruction, and where all 73,000 students are going in math. She is familiar with state requirements as well as where our brightest and best are going.
One of the problems is that kids race to get into algebra in 8th grade, then don’t go as far in math as they should be going, often stopping or floundering at algebra II. Math sense and concepts seem to run out.
5-10% of the kids will learn and go on to higher math classes with ease, regardless of what program they take. Great if your kid is in that sub group. If I had a kid in the program and did not like it, I would just give them extra work at home, same as if I thought they were not being taught reading correctly or if they had a teacher that just was not the teacher for them. If I wasn’t comfortable doing that, I would get a tutor. Many parents do that and have done that for years.
It is unreasonable for parents to expect the entire implementation of the curriculum to change because they do not like it. Sceptical, it is difficult to run 2 different programs in the building. Elemetary scheduling is already a nightmare without that. There aren’t enough kids and teachers to offer options.
They managed two programs when they introduced MI without even telling the parents..
And I’m sorry; they are not interested in the bright students, they only want to increase the SOL pass rate so he can move on to a bigger district.
The advance pass rates for 3rd grade stayed flat while 4th, 5th and Fairfax even Stafford showed significant gains.
They can’t even manage to increase the base SOL rate. The only reason it didn’t drop is most teachers abandoned MI for the last 2 months to get ready for the SOL.
You seriously believe this? You believe professionals would publicly address a school board because they would be allowed to wear casual dress on Friday while the rest of the staff did not?
You mention “rumors” and “reports” (really just another word for rumors). If you’re going to make such outrageous statements, you really should have proof.
For all those MI fans out there, why oh why has it been thrown out of district after district?
Why is it being thrown out of even Dr. Walt’s old district and there wasn’t even a parent group complaining there! It was the Greece School system that wanted a new text book, not the parents. Maybe it is because they dropped to the bottom in math and they’ve had the program for 8 years.
Casual Friday varies from school to school. I seriously doubt a county mandate came down from on high over it. Furthermore, the math department does not set dress policy.
Yes, PWC schools does care about bright kids, Sceptical. Whatever makes you think they don’t. Have you checked the upper level course offerings?
As for the SOL scores, yes, all schools had better be real concerned about their pass rate as well as their annual yearly progress. To even question why shows a clear disconnect as to what is considered important nation wide regarding education. Check out the requirements of NCLB. Most school systems prefer to not have schools that have not made annual yearly improvement. It is the main focus of every school in the USA.
Finally, the 3rd graders did not do worse than last year. 2005-2006 pass rate 91%,
2006-2007 pass rate 90%. 2007-2008 pass rate 90%.
I think that is wonderful. However, it is probably not much of an indicator of how good of a program MI is. It is really too soon to tell. What you need to follow are the math scores in 6, 7th grades. You will be drawing a deep breath as you walk away. While you are at it, check out the surrounding areas in 6, 7th grades. The pass rates are extremely low. Kids do not know how to do problems solving.
Don’t take my word for it: Go to report card/division
https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/
Regardless of which method is used for math in elementary school, your child will learn math. Many a kid has graduated high school without knowing the multiplication tables. With any luck, some old bitch in 6th grade will make them learn them anyway. Let the algorithms begin.
My parents ALWAYS supplemented in math when I was a child. We practiced math facts nightly.
It kills me to see parents who are PISSED OFF that they have to supplement at home.
MI does teach math facts. And math fact memorization. But just like when I was a kid, the facts won’t be memorized until they are practiced nightly for brief periods of time.
So many of you are “appalled” that you have to give worksheets and practice skills at home with your kids — this is should give you great SHAME.
Do you not remember all of the teaching and supplementing YOUR parents did?
Kids never did learn 100% of what they needed to learn during 6 hours of school. Practice happened at home. But then again, parents back then weren’t running like maniacs from soccer, to tae-kwon-do, to girl scouts, to board meetings with a pitstop at McDonald’s in between. Instead they were at home most nights – working with their kids.
When I grew up, the parents didn’t need to supplement because the teachers new how to differentiate and gave the brighter kids harder problems.
NCLB has not helped schools to improve but that is anther subject.
1% is not statistically significant. The flat advance pass compared to 4th grade 40% to 47% and 5th grade 50% to 58% is very telling.
In a class of 25 to 28, the teacher can’t get around to everyone’s solution and can’t keep the brighter kids entertained.
We are upset because if you complain, you get an annoying lecture about how it’s helping them understand the numbers better. Well we haven’t seen any evidence of that. They can’t work things out on their own and they can’t do it in their heads; they are confused.
Did last year’s 4th graders not study math using Investigations? Their scores are increasing for both proficient and pass advanced. You cannot compare one year to the next. Much has to do with objectives at that grade level. Check out the differences in 6,7,8. Different objectives, different tests.
Scep, it would probably be a good idea to not rely on SOL testing to prove your point. SOL test scores don’t really address the issues you are trying to so desperately to illustrate using data. I don’t think you are going to be able to use empirical
evidence with the tests that are available.
Finally, most kids do not do well with programs they know their parents hate. I hope your child does not know how you feel about this program. The children I have talked to who learn using Investigations seem to love it. I think any time kids are engaged and participating in math rather than sitting and pushing a pencil they enjoy it more. Just an observation.
I am not relying on SOL scores; I’m using them as one indicator. Last year’s 4th graders did not study with MI as far as I know but then I’m not in the math department.
I know the 5th graders didn’t.
One year to the next is only useful for spotting trends. MI didn’t go up; 4th, 5th, Stafford rd and Fairfax 3rd all went up by roughly the same amount.
I think the excessive testing is very disruptive to the learning process; but it is an indication of a problem.
I didn’t start looking at SOLs or any other evidence until my son complained of being bored in math and his math recall shows serious depredation over his 1st grade year.
To my knowledge Investigations was not used in Grade 4 countywide last year. It may have been used in a handful of schools, but the official implementation timetable had it rolling to 4th grade this Fall.
The rules regarding inclusion of LEP students changed recently and the drops noted in pass rates for math from Spring 2006 to Spring 2007 might be attributable to that change. In the past LEP students were granted a one year waiver from having their SOL scores count in the school districts overall scores. That changed and LEP scores were included in the overall Math scores for Spring 2007. So comparing 2006 to 2007 or 2008 is kind of like comparing apples to oranges.
Unfortunately test scores are one of the criteria used to assess the effectiveness of a program of study. We have only had one year of test scores to compare and the results are neither a smoking gun nor a glowing halo.
From what I’ve gathered, parents aren’t complaining about having to do additional work with their children at home. They’re complaining about not being able to do additional work at home with their children because what they teach at home isn’t supported under Investigations.
I have to say that the finger pointing and nasty comments are a bit disappointing. We all have our children’s best interests at heart. We all want them to succeed and to be happy. Can’t we approach the discussion from that standpoint rather than pointing fingers and demeaning one another?
I wish we could; did you hear the board meeting?
What most of us complain about is a lack of rigor; not enough practice. I can follow their strategies but don’t agree with withholding standard algorithms so long and expect more practice problems.
Unfortunately if we complain we are met with ridicule and bullying by those in official positions.
If they agree to a real choice, that solves it. I don’t know what they are afraid of.
They managed 2 programs at many schools when they rolled out MI ahead of the adoption process.
“When I grew up, the parents didn’t need to supplement because the teachers new how to differentiate and gave the brighter kids harder problems.”
I would love to know when this utopia existed …
As far as I can recall, parents have ALWAYS had to practice skills with their kids at home, if they wanted them to be proficient.
I know my parents worked with me. I know my parents’ parents worked with them – in fact, I remember the lectures from my parents that this is what involved and responsible parents did – and that I should stop complaining about it!
This was Europe. My European relatives are amazed at the work parents put in here to achieve such mediocre results. They don’t even do homework there until 11 years old.
Throughout this discussion (here, and at citizen’s time), those who want the PWCS Board to implement an opt-in to a traditional math program for their children have stated over and over that those families who have had success with MI need not worry because they have no desire to see MI removed from PWC schools. They say all they want is a choice for their own children.
Today I visited the website for the petition Alanna linked to:
http://www.petitiononline.com/123math/petition.html
I noted two very specific stated goals in the petition:
And then there’s this declaration at http://www.pwcteachmathright.com/:
Translation: The goal of the petitioners is to cease implementation of MI after grade 5, and to have a traditional text book adopted as the primary source for 5th grade.
My child will be a fifth grader next year. If MI is not the primary curriculum in 5th grade, what will be? And why would the county continue to invest in MI? My child has had good success with MI. She’s bright and loves to be challenged (parents who support traditional math cannot lay exclusive claim to that descriptor) across the curriculum. She’s a member of her school’s 24 Team, which practices once a week after school, and she was selected to represent her school at the PWCS 24 Competition at Godwin Middle last year. Bright kids are having success with MI. She’s in Signet, which I say only because it appears that there’s now an assertion being put forward that MI is not enough for bright kids. It’s plenty enough. Frankly, I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can walk into an MI classroom and not come away with a deep appreciation for how those kids are learning math and how they are learning to express themselves mathematically. Listen to an MI kid — whose parents are fully vested in the program — explain to you how they’ve solved a problem, or different ways they could have solved the same problem. You’ll see a math literacy that “traditional” math simply doesn’t instill.
To date, 1521 parents have signed the anti-MI petition. After months of publicity, controversy, and outcry; after countless PWCS board meetings and citizens’ times where both pro- and anti-MI parents have had the opportunity to speak out (all of which are are aired on PWCS TV multiple times over the two-week period between meetings); after a very public attempt to have MI pulled from PWCS, all that work has realized a total of 1521 signatures. That’s it.
I was a parent representative from our school at one of the County’s very first MI parent/teacher workshops a few years ago. It was an evening program at Hylton or Forest Park HS (I’m always confusing those schools), and the auditorium was filled to capacity with parents and teachers. Mrs. Knight took great pains to introduce the MI curriculum to us, and it was very hands-on. Every single parent and teacher who attended the workshop that night left absolutely thrilled that MI was coming to PWCS. After that, I attended “Family Math Night” at my child’s school two or three times every school year and, again, Mrs. Knight and Mrs. Stopko were there with power points, and answered every parent’s questions until there were none left. She asked kids to come up to the overhead projector, gave them a grease pencil, and asked them demonstrate how they would solve a problem using MI. Kids couldn’t wait to get up there and show what they knew to a cafetorium filled with parents and teachers. Parents and kids were given problems along with different MI materials and asked to solve them together. I’ll be honest and say that some kids struggled with some of the problems, but the cool thing was that other kids jumped in to help them and there was typically a “eureka” moment when a kid (or a parent) finally got it.
Some of the people who have been participating in the discussion over here have also been over on the bvbl. Here, they say they are all about “choice” for their kids; over at bvbl, they are asking how they can recall Don Richardson, or put the PWCS School Board back under the authority of the BOS. I ask: Do you really want Corey Stewart and John Stirrup picking school board members or having any influence at all over school policies? When I moved here back in the late-1980s, members of the school board were actually appointed by the County Supervisor for their district. Fortunately, that policy ended not long after we arrived because parents pushed for an elected school board.
“Sceptical” (and I apologize if you’re not the same “Sceptical” who has posted here) said on bvbl:
That statement acknowledges what we all know to be true: In this budget cycle, the board will not be able to fund two separate math programs in every PWC elementary school. At least you’re honest about that, “Sceptical.” So you’ll understand why I am very skeptical about your true colors when you (and others) say you all you want is for every parent in PWC to have a choice as to how their child learns math.
Because, clearly, the agenda goes way beyond that.
I’m not sure the teach math right people have interpreted the grade 5 agenda item correctly, at least based on what you put here and how I interpret it. Right now the officially approved text for Grade 5 is SFAW ; next year it will be Investigations. So either I’m not sure the agenda item is to related to next year, it could apply to those schools which are using MI in 5th grade now, but I have no clue. I just think the excitement might be misplaced.
It doesn’t seem to matter much, anyway, because I just went to the PWCS web site and looked for that agenda item to see if it was clarified at all and it’s been removed. Perhaps the excitement was premature.
I clicked on the link to the petition in your post and it also says this, “Allow PWCS parents to “opt out” of “Investigations” immediately and be provided with an appropriate traditional mathematics education for their children – in every PWCS elementary school – using either the legacy PWCS traditional core mathematics courseware or any of the top four recommended traditional elementary math text/materials series approved by VDOE (Harcourt Math, Houghton Mifflin Math, Scott-Foresman Addison Wesley Mathematics, or Saxon Math). ”
If I had to guess I’d say the petition is a wish list of sorts and that the strategy of the petitioners has changed since the thing was first drafted. If they get an opt out I can’t see why they’d continue to try to get MI removed as the core program, but that’s just a guess.
I forgot to ask this – I thought MI only went to 5th grade or am I mistaken?
It is the same sceptical. I am acknowledging that MI 5th grade is an expense not yet incurred.
That petition was written a couple of years ago before the choice option was brought up.
You can’t change it part way through.
1500 signatures is a lot considering it’s all word of mouth. The proposal is to re-use the previous text so no additional expense; savings in MI workbook material with some additional admin.
Have you looked into how your child will transition to middle school?
They are using a traditional text; I don’t think your child will be able to switch as easily as the math dept claims. That must be why Connected Math which is not on the 6th grade approved list has started turning up in middle schools.
I have no agenda other than better math for my children.
Yes, MI is only to 5th grade. Math dept says there won’t be any problem transitioning to middle school traditional text as the kids are so good at tackling any problem;
Strikes me as a bit naive.
Connected math is the middle school follow on but that’s only state approved in one grade.
They plan on using it as a supplement but that’s all they’ll tell me.
Sceptical,
How long were the school days in Europe, back in the day? Did you go the same number of days that we go here in the US now?
School year was different without the hot summers. About 5 weeks summer hols, week at half term in October, 2 weeks Xmas, 2 weeks at easter, half term in May. The day was 9 to 3:30 so same length.
Didn’t need snow days. They stream by ability though. That made a big difference because most kids were at roughly the same level in each class.
They experimented with mixed ability for one term and we lost a term. The slow kids didn’t get the help they needed and the advanced kids got nothing done.
Casual Observer, I took noticed people speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Your prior statement was very well said.
I am concerned that there is now a gang of thugs out after Mr. Richardson. I saw the selective video that is being shown on bvbl. That is a perfect example of how to pull out only what you want the viewer to see. Propaganda at its most rudimentary. Its ‘author’ knows that there is more to the story than what he shows, yet he has chosen to once again be deceitful. The ‘author’ was at the meeting until it was over and can clearly be seen in the school board video.
Imagine my surprise to find out comments on youtube under the makeshift video have been disabled. Its author can bash Mr. Richardson and no one has any place to respond.
Isn’t America grand!’
I am also concerned about an escalation against him and Mr Lattin mind you, elected officials should not go off as they did. The rest of the speeches those 2 made were not any better than the snippet included there.
The proponents of more traditional math have tried to maintain proper decorum and not singled anyone out for individual criticism but his comments aimed at us were totally I inappropriate.
I complained to him in an email to the board as I am trying to focus on the issue of maths.
And I don’t think I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth.
I would rather see MI gone. If choice is a way to get my kid back into a more challenging math program, I’ll take it.
As will the 50% of parents who say investigations doesn’t meet their kids needs (and half of the teachers said the same) on the last survey.
I agree ISO. As usual, Greg has to find one person to demonize. Par for the course. Although I did not stay to the end, apparently there was a “walk out” of parents while Mr. Lattin was speaking.
As my child is not in PWC schools, I can only comment on what I have heard and seen from other parents. While I actually agree that children need to understand, concretely, what numbers mean, before they can move on to the abstract, I also believe you must marry the two premises. I heard conflicting comments from various teachers. On one hand you have a school, Porter, that appears to be successfuly doing that exact blend, but then you have other schools that are only teaching MI, there is no dependablity on what you child will be taught.
My child is in Montessori, math is taught by sensorial materials first, but then once the “concept” of numbers is mastered, they transition immediately to the traditional algorithm.
MI can be a supplement. MCPS bought into the Scott/Foresman math curriculum some 4 odd years ago. With that curriculum came MI as a supplement,the MI books, and the MI manipulative sets all came together with the scott/Foresman math books etc. When the Scott/foresman consultant came to give us ideas of what to teach in our classroom, she focused on our supplemental MI program along with the scott/foresman way. Needless to say MCPS has been using MI as a supplement for many years. We have the books for scott/foresman, and the manipulative kits for k-3 MI. MCPS has joined the scott/foresman way and MI with the state TTACS as well. The result is a combination of math techniques that has required the MCPS to develop their own set of math benchmark tests for all grades that adhere to all facets of math curiculums available that they use.
Oh and for all of you who wonder which text book company owns Math Investigations. Scott Foresman does.
Are you sure about that? You’ve never heard Mr. Barlow poke at Mr. Lattin and others when he’s spoken at board meetings? He did it again last week, and that’s what provoked Mr. Lattin’s response. He said as much. Should he have responded that way? I’m not sure. I do know that explaining your decision-making process month after month has to get frustrating, and then to have opponents raise the same questions every other week because they think if they ask enough the reality will change. Members of the school board have sat at the dais and heard repeated allegations of malfeasance on the part Supt. Walts and his staff. They’ve been threatened with FOIA requests and been forced to listen to one conspiracy theory after another. I read the parent blog in Greece, NY. I saw the nonsense that was posted up there last summer, and I noted that those flames were fanned from all the way down here in PWC by people opposed to MI. If I, a humble parent with a decent google skills, was able to find it, you can be sure other parents and school board members have read it as well.
Like I said, the agenda has moved way beyond MI, or at least it has for the leaders of the movement.
Neither Lattin nor Richardson is my representative, and I’ve never had much agreement with either one’s politics, but I think they’ve been good, principled school board members. I think that’s true of every member of the PWCS Board. I wish the BOCS functioned with half the professionalism and integrity.
I do agree with Mr. Nicholson that it’s time to move on. Enough debate. The decision to adopt MI came after proper consideration and according to PWCS rules and procedures. I think Mrs. Knight’s energies are better focused on implementing programs and workshops to help families understand MI and help them to understand how their children are learning — as she has been doing throughout this debate.
The school board cannot allow 1521 people to determine instructional methods. If that happens, I can guarantee that the next time science textbooks are reviewed we’ll have people petitioning for separate classrooms where their children can learn creationism. It will happen.
I hope we can put the rumor mongering and nastiness aside as we move forward. Perhaps we can focus our efforts on an issue I’m sure most parents of middle and high school students can get behind: A proposal to change the grading system, as happened last week in Fairfax County.
http://www.fairgrade.org/default.aspx
Now that Fairfax has adopted a more traditional HS grading system (80-90=B; 80-90=A), Prince William County’s grading system is even more unfair. Here, 93-100 is an A. That hurts our kids when they apply to colleges, and I’ve experienced that first hand. Transcripts don’t record a student’s average in a class, so colleges only see that a student had a B in, say, AP History. What they don’t see is that student had a 90, 91 or 92 average — which would be an A just about anywhere else. My HS senior was shut out of a merit award for one of her top pick colleges last week because of that policy. She was accepted, but wasn’t offered a merit scholarship that could very well have gone to an applicant from another district with virtually the same grades but a different grading scale.
That’s a policy I’m happy to debate with the school board!
Casual Observer, what a wonderfully written comment. I agree with everything you have said. I wish I could be half as eloquent as you have been.
You are right about PCW’s grading system needing to change. The first place it needs to change is to shore up the grading system and make it consistent from at least 4th grade on up to 12th. Unfortunately, too many students get into a horrible habit of not doing work. The zeroes don’t seem to hurt their grades that much, until 8th grade. If that habit of zeroes becomes well-entrenched, and what wouldn’t in 8 years, then the student is often doomed to a high school life of F’s.
The school board was approached again 5 years ago about making the grading system consistent. A few principals nixed the idea and insisted on keeping the 4 point system through grade 7. Let’s hope someone will take up the cause again and make the corrections suggested by Casual Observer and also make the county grades consistent for elementary and secondary students. The kids will ultimately be the winners.
I’m sorry, but it wasn’t adopted in accordance with Virginia law and that’s why the FOIA requests happened. They are not a threat; just an attempt to find the truth.
Ruth Parker who only advocates for MI kicked off the text selection process which is meant to be unbiased.
MI is not approved at 5th grade so the selection process must be approved by the board or it cannot be used as the primary text.
One parent reviewer is also a PWCS employee.
I am not Mr Barlow and I speak for myself. Mr Lattin showed no restraint and attacked all on his side as did Mr Richardson.
And it’s not 1521 people; it’s half the parents and teachers according to the math departments own survey. And I did say “tried to maintain proper decorum”. I can understand the frustration level when you present evidence of failure or wrongdoing only to be told to sit down and shut up every time.
Thankfully, some board members have started doing their own research and are figuring out that something smells fishy.
Causal Observer,
So you’re concerned about what letter gets assigned to a subject your child takes, but not concerned about whether they actually learn the subject matter? It bothers you because of dollars and opportunity missed at college. How about opportunities in LIFE that are missed because of a substandard education?
This MI debate for me is primarily about the content and delivery of the program. Any math program that “teaches” addition and subtraction of fractions without teaching the concept of least common denominator is missing a critical skill. What’s worse is that it is intentional! The authors come from a school of thought that 7ths and 9ths never occur in the real world (never mind figuring out the portion of workdays in a week or infielders on a baseball team, or any other example you want to come up with), so it’s only important that they know “friendly” fractions. How shortsighted is it that they believe they know what fractions every children will need to know for the rest of their lives! That ranks right up there with the quote from Beyond Arithmetic “In the Investigations curriculum, standard algorithms are not taught because they interfere with a child’s growing sense and fluency with the number system.” (The current edition gives scant treatment to the standard algorithms and the PWC staff, after much criticism of their support of Investigations lack of these algorithms, apparently has relented somewhat to supplement with teaching of standard algorithms, but at a later grade level than recommended by the NCTM). The program overly stresses concept development without the corresponding skill development.
I am also concerned about the delivery of a program that encourages students to talk about math “in their own language” (standard terminology is critical … what if we all went around deciding what we should call a “bear”, common terms are essential to communication) and discover their own ways of solving problems. This approach to learning is time consuming and error prone (with one teacher covering a class of 20+, it could be a while before a child is corrected). Yet to say that that’s all the program is, is incorrect. You mention lattice multiplication. Certainly students don’t come up with that on their own. That needs to be taught, why not do the same with the standard algorithm? Why doesn’t that interfere with a child’s developing growing sense and fluency with the number system? It certainly is not error-free, I’ve seen plenty of mistakes from using it, starting with drawing the diagonals the wrong way! And it obscures the concept of place value much more than the standard algorithm. (I don’t mind children learning it, but I my thoughts there would fill many more paragraphs).
The fact that hundreds of mathematicians decry this program (I’m sure there must be one in favor of it, but I haven’t found him) should bother any parent who has a child in it. The fact that the National Math Panel says concepts and skills must be taught concurrently, that curriculum should be taught to mastery, and that challenging practice is needed (any MI parent can tell you that is lacking … sadly it’s lacking from many traditional textbooks too, which might be part of the reason we’re in this mess) are even more reasons for parents to be concerned.
The fact that our math department staff thinks this is a good program doesn’t trump the knowledge of foremost mathematicians. There was a presentation at a board meeting last year where a PWC employee (a gifted teacher I believe) stated that Algebra is all about the study of patterns. She lost all credibility with me right there, yet she went on to talk for at least another 20 minutes. Algebra should primarily be about the study of mathematical operations with variables and the factorization of polynomials (if that hasn’t been watered down). The educational system that has given us MI has also been sold on open classrooms, whole language, ebonics, and (add your favorite educational fad here). Parents are right to be skeptical about MI (especially given the prominence and background of its detractors) when its sole support is coming from the education community.
I have seen much said about opponents of MI which is completely false. MI supporters like to stereotype us and then attack that, rather than confront the issues that we raise. The discontent with this program is much wider and deeper than supporters wish to admit. I certainly hope that the PWC school board provides parents a choice to “opt-in” to traditional mathematics.
Steve Santee
Steve Santee wrote:
See that last word in your thought? That’s the moment I stopped reading.
Elena-I’m a huge Montessori enthusiast as well and had it not been for my child’s experiences in a Montessori preschool, I probably wouldn’t have been discouraged by the SLOW pace of the MI program even in a school that does some supplementation. The big problem in my mind is the lack of differentiation. The MI pedagogy believes that children of certain ages are not ready to learn certain materials and it is the policy of the math office to only extend most K-5 students within their own grade level (with MI extensions my child finds tedious). A peer of my child’s in Fairfax has at least four different math groups in their class just as we do with reading groups and works on much more challenging arithmetic problems. Gosh I wish something like this was available to my child here in PWC…
So why don’t you answer my points about the adoption process rather than nit-picking?
Sceptical,
I suggest you go to the PWCS.edu website. You’ll find the .pdf documents to answer your questions there. Then, again, you already knew that.
It’s the same old game. The most vocal opponents of MI continue to hijack the discussion in other directions when they don’t like where they are hearing. Your questions have all been answered throughout the past year, time and time again. I can’t think of a school board meeting that I’ve missed on PWCS-TV since they started using it. I’ve seen every discussion, every presentation, every citizen’s comment. I’ve seen it all. Every question ever asked by those opposed to MI, every challenge and assertion that’s been made against the school board, staff, experts, TERC, the adoption process…it’s all been addressed and answered multiple times.
You may not like the answers you’re hearing, but it’s ridiculous to say your questions have been ignored.
You’ve admitted that you want MI out of PWCS. You won’t even stand by the petition that you’ve been waving around as proof that 1521 parents want choice, when the petition clearly states you want MI out. Oh, you say, that petition was written so long ago…we can’t change it now… but now we want choice…just don’t pay attention to that other stuff… So does the petition even stand for anything anymore? Of course, there is the announcement on your website asking your members to call their school board rep to ask them to support Milton John’s resolution not to adopt MI for the fifth grade. That was posted this week.
You said it yourself: Perhaps it will be the budget that kills MI. We all know that our school system cannot afford two separate math classrooms in every PWCS elementary school. Choice is just a smokescreen. Looks like the next tactic will be to ask Corey Stewart to hold hostage the PWCS budget so that the school board will put into place your group’s preferred instructional method. Your group has even been so kind as to list the textbooks that are acceptable.
Casual Observer – I felt compelled to respond after you stated that all of our questions have been answered. I’ve asked several questions which remain unanswered. Since I asked them in email and you have no way of knowing what I asked, I’ll ask them again and hope that perhaps you’ll be able to provide me with better answers than I received.
My primary question was about balance. I’ve been hearing a lot about how the program is balanced and provides a blended approach to instruction. I’d like to know how the Investigations framework has been adapted to provide blended lessons. I’d like to know which lessons are blended, where the materials which provide the blended instruction come from, and how the Investigations lessons have been adapted to provide blended instruction.
These aren’t complicated questions and the information I requested should be readily available if the program has truly been adapted to provide that blend we keep hearing about. So that you are fully informed, when I asked this question of PWC staff, I was given a link to the Grade 3 pacing guide and then told that my question had been fully answered.
This one has not been answered:
MI is not approved at 5th grade so the selection process must be approved by the board or it cannot be used as the primary text.
It was not so approved.
You would only know that an answer had been attempted if you were in or closely associated with the school system.
An answer was provided in FOIA which was inaccurate and evasive.
And to reiterate what anonymous said; what changed with the “blended” approach.
Nothing as far as I could tell from the work they were doing, the pacing guides etc.
They were doing a “blended” approach from day one; filling in the many areas where MI didn’t meet the SOLs. If anything more changed, that should have been communicated.
“it’s all been addressed and answered multiple times.”
I suspected Casual Observer was an insider but your last posting confirmed it. How would you personally know that the hundreds of questions asked by parents about MI have been answered? I do know that the Math Dept. frequently puts out the information that they have answered all questions, but that is not true. Some of the board members even mentioned last week that all their questions had not been answered.
And when they do answer, the answers are misleading. Example: When the schools were almost pure MI, some parent asks about long division and why isn’t it taught? Answer: It is taught in 4th grade, here is the lesson. Truth: The lesson is one page and the method is described as an alternative method…the way it is worded, the child would be led to think it is an inferior method and that is how the teaching guide refers to it as well. Children aren’t even required to practice that method. So your child is basically being told that long division is not a smart way to solve the problem. But the Math Dept. only holds up the one page lesson and says “see long division is taught”.
The math dept.’s very own favorite speaker, Ruth Parker (who they pay thousands and thousands of dollars to come to talk to teachers and parents) specifically says that long division is the old way and not applicable to today’s education. When I talked to her after the meeting, she said she’d be fine if no child learned long division period. She said the calculators make it unneccessary in the modern world and that the concept was more important.
So you can see parental frustration. Ask a question, and get an answer but you know that it isn’t really the true picture.
Now as far as long division, teachers were teaching it on their own because they had to for the SOLs but pure long division would never be taught at all in any way in 4th grade if we followed pure core Math investigations without the adjustments. I don’t think I am alone when I say I want my kid to know long division.
The other thing that I have become far more angry about is that the Math Dept. fought hard against the blended approach saying it would destroy the MI method. Now they are toting the blended approach as why things are so terrific and almost bragging about how blended they are. How can that be? Only months ago, the blended approach was the most awful suggestion that had ever been given to them. Only months ago, if a teacher was blending, they were monitored and watched and given a talking to. And now teachers come up there and boast about how blended they are.
No wonder people are so mad
excellent comment; now let’s see who changes the subject and picks on your grammar or spelling.
Are you kidding me?? I can guarantee that you’ve had more contact with the school board and school administration than I’ve ever had. I’ve never even attended a board meeting in person, though I watch every one on television, just as I do the BOS meetings. As I stated earlier, I’ve witnessed every MI discussion, presentation, testimony, citizen comment, citizen question etc. that’s occurred at School Board meetings. I’ve watched representatives from the Mathematics department answer your questions at Board Meetings, at Family Math Nights, at Workshops, and I’ve read everything about MI that’s been posted on the PWCS website — and that includes downloading and reading every .pdf of every report and supporting research that’s been uploaded. THAT’S how I know your many, many questions have been answered time and time again.
The only communication I’ve even had with the board was an email I sent to all of them voicing my family’s support for MI before last week’s meeting. I cc’d Carol Knight. She might recognize my face from some the workshops I’ve attended, but I’ve never introduced myself to her by name and she certainly wouldn’t know my child’s name. I received three generic “thanks for writing” responses from two board members (one board member sent me the same email twice, several hours apart), and a response from Ms. Knight answering two specific questions I asked in my email. But, again, other than an email exchange I had with a gentleman (who previously represented my district) years ago about another matter with one of my children, I’ve never had any contact (email, phone call, meeting, etc.) with another school board member. My current rep wouldn’t know me from Adam. I’m sure he’d know you, though.
The only “insider” information I’ve acquired is that of a SAHM with three children who attend/attended PWCS elementary, middle and HS starting in 1993 and continuing today. I’ve always had an intense interest in my children’s schools and their education. I’ve been volunteering in their classrooms once or twice a week since my oldest (now in college) started k-garten. I did a stint at one school’s PTA board many years ago but PTA wasn’t for me so I dropped after my term was up. I was on the Parent Advisory Council at the same ES many years ago and enjoyed that much more, but that never brought me into contact with anyone from the school board or The Hill. I attended many information meetings back in the mid-1990’s when Dr. Kelly was revising the ENTIRE curriculum. I was there for the whole language/phonics controversy, and I’m here now as the schools introduce MI.
I’m a veteran parent who does her research, that’s it. I’m getting involved in the MI debate because it appears to me that a minority of parents are trying to hijack the process and push their own agenda, with a callous disregard for the reputations they are damaging in the process. I’ll say it a third time: Your agenda has moved way beyond MI. Even a non-insider like me can see that — as long as they know how to use the internet. And who doesn’t in 2009?
I’m no insider. The idea is laughable. But if believing that gives you an excuse to reject any of the points I’ve made, well, I can’t help that. I don’t even know why I feel the need to defend myself, but I do. Thank goodness I’ve never given you my real name or I’m sure I’d be publicly dragged through the mud as well. Just like the secretary at Porter Traditional who had the NERVE to publicly speak in support of MI.
This is nuts. I’m done. But you can be sure I’ll stay involved behind the scenes making my voice heard in support of MI. And I’ll continue to support my children, their schools and their teachers. I’ve done so for the past 15 years and I will until my youngest graduates in 2017.
Ok; sorry for calling you an insider. So how did calling it blended make any difference?
What changed?
Having read your response in more detail, it seems you don’t actually have any kids doing MI so all you know of it comes from the publisher or the math department.
I have experience of both programs and I can assure you, my son learned a lot less in 1st grade than his older sibling, That’s what got me involved and it is the only reason I am involved. You keep talking about a hidden agenda; I don’t have one and I don’t think the others do either.
We all want our Wednesday evenings back; I don’t enjoy public speaking as you will know from the board meetings. As you have seen them all, I’m the English one.
Did you even reading my posts?? I’ve said many times that I have a fourth-grader in PWCS who has been using MI since 2nd grade, and who has had great success.
I will make this as clear as I can.
I have a child in college who attended PWCS from k-12.
I have a senior in HS who has attended PWCS k-12
I have fourth grader who has attended PWCS k-4, and will most likely go all the way through 12 barring any unforseen circumstances.
And, AGAIN, everything I know about MI comes from personal experience as the mother of a fourth grade MI student, as a parent volunteer in that child’s classroom, as well as from attending every MI Family Workshop I could, several math department MI information meetings since the very first one when my youngest was in 2nd grade, watching every board meeting, researching on the internet (at PWCS.edu, MI groups, as well as the sources your group links to).
Read back through my posts and you will see quite clearly what I when I say there is a hidden agenda. Or have you not read bvbl of late?
If you’re going to pick apart my posts at least know what I’ve said!
PS…I haven’t said anything about the blended approach, so I don’t know why you keep asking me to explain or justify the county’s policy.