| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Everyday Mathematics; Original topic that lead to the creation of this forum | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 16 2007, 05:53 PM (49,180 Views) | |
| IlikeLIvonia | May 16 2007, 05:53 PM Post #1 |
Advanced Member
  ![]](http://209.85.48.16/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
I have seen quite a few of these petitions to school boards started by parent groups. To: The Board of Education and Superintendent of the Ridgewood Public School System For more than a decade, mathematics programs across the country have been under “reform” from within the educational system. These reforms are based upon standards not widely accepted by the very individuals who use, advance, teach, and rely upon mathematics for their careers. Mathematicians, university professors, engineers, and scientists have derided “reform” math programs for abandoning the foundations of mathematics. Investigations in Number, Data, & Space (TERC), Everyday Math, and Connected Math Program 2 are all members of the reform math group. All are in use to varying degrees within our school district, within individual schools, and within individual classrooms. These programs do not provide ... ... for those children who need logical sequencing of topics. ... for those children who are more mathematical than verbal in their development. ... for those children who need to work from the building blocks of a topic before transitioning to the abstract and larger picture. ... for those children who gain confidence from the how in mathematics and are therefore willing to undertake the process of learning the why. ... for those children who can advance on to further mathematical topics at a pace greater than allowed by the group and discovery model. ... for those children who need direct guidance to learn clear & concise standard strategies for problem solving & critical mathematical thinking. It is time to provide a choice in mathematics education for these children. Only then is our public education system truly for all. The undersigned … ... support the continued excellence from our dedicated educational staff. ... declare a vote of no confidence in the following reform materials to prepare our children for the 21st century; TERC or Investigations in Number, Data, & Space (1st, 2nd Editions), Everyday Math, Trailblazers, Connected Mathematics Program, Connected Mathematics Program II, and Integrated Math (Core-Plus). ... request the reform math materials not be used as the source for our children’s mathematics education. ... advocate for the benefit of our children to have a district wide curriculum for grades K-8 that is based upon world class guidelines, contains clear, concise, and substantive mathematical content per grade level, and requires consistent usage of textbooks, workbooks, and study plans across all of our schools (e.g, Saxon Math, Houghton Mifflin, Singapore Math … ). ... seek to have a cooperative and open environment, inclusive of parents, restored to our public school system. ... request the Board of Education to intervene on the behalf of parents and taxpayers and return accountability of this adminstration back to the parents and taxpayers. Math programs do exist that have well designed materials for student and parents, that do utilize the powerful language and vocabulary of mathematics, that require computational fluency and understanding of the underlying mathematical ideas and principles, that recognize these parts are all intertwined in the study of mathematics, and that are not on the bleeding edge of the "math wars" like TERC, Everyday Math, and Connected Math Program 2. Sincerely, The Undersigned The Restore Tradition of Excellence in K-8 Math Education in Ridgewood Petition to The Board of Education and Superintendent of the Ridgewood Public School System was created by Concerned Parents' Math Committee and written by Elizabeth Gnall (vor_mathinfo@optonline.net). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form. |
 |
 
|
| IlikeLIvonia | May 16 2007, 05:58 PM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
|
These are the programs that have been contested in so many districts.... NSF Funded Mathematics Reform Curricula Elementary Level: Everyday Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Developed by University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Published by Everyday Learning Corporation Investigations in Number, Data and Space (TERC) Developed by TERC, Cambridge Mathematics Published by Scott Foresman/Addison Wesley (formerly Dale Seymour) Math Trailblazers (TIMS) Developed by Teaching Integrated Mathematics & Science Project (TIMS) Published by Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company Middle School Level: Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) Developed by Michigan State University, Department of Mathematics Published by Scott Foresman/Addison Wesley (formerly Dale Seymour) MATH Thematics/ Six through Eight Mathematics (STEM) Developed by University of Montana, Department of Mathematics Published by McDougall Little/ Houghton Mifflin. Mathematics in Context (MiC) Developed by University of Wisconsin, Center of Education Published by Britannica. Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project (MMAP) or Pathways to Algebra and Geometry Developed by Institute for Research on Learning, Palo Alto, CA Published by WestEd Corporation (marketing is in transition) Math Scape - Seeing and Thinking Mathematically (STM) Developed by The Education Development Center, Newton, MA. Published by Creative Publications. High School Level: Core-Plus: Contemporary Mathematics in Context Developed by the Core-Plus Mathematics Project (CPMP), Dept. of Mathematics, Western Michigan University. Published by Everyday Learning MATH Connections: A three-year high school curriculum Published by ITS ABOUT TIME, Inc. Mathematics: Modeling Our World (MMOW) Developed by Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications (COMAP) as as Project ARISE (Applications/Reform in Seconday Education) Published by W.C. Freeman Co. |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 07:19 PM Post #3 |
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old forum 1 of 16 Posted: Feb 5 2007, 01:52 PM 1st Grade Group: Members Posts: 5 Member No.: 192 Joined: 6-December 05 Is anyone familiar with the new math program that Mrs. Alles is recommending at tonight's meeting? Some of the reviews that I see on the internet don't rate it very highly. new school mom Posted: Feb 5 2007, 02:05 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 We are in a pilot class at Coolidge..first grade..it is a good program--Our teacher, whom I respect very highly, loves it and has recommended it to the district. Also, it is the same math program that most of oakland county schools are using, it is called Everyday Math. Just FYI, according to our teacher there has been a team of teachers piloting 2 different math programs in the district for almost 1 year, so I do not believe the recommendation comes lightly. We, as parents were also asked in Nov/Dec to fill out a survey regarding the program for the committee. So, the recommendation comes from the committee, not the administration. If you want any more background on the program let me know!! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 02:19 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Brief Description Everyday Mathematics, published by Wright Group/McGraw-Hill, is a core curriculum for students in kindergarten through grade 6 covering numeration and order, operations, functions and sequences, data and chance, algebra, geometry and spatial sense, measures and measurement, reference frames, and patterns. At each grade level, the Everyday Mathematics curriculum provides students with multiple opportunities to learn concepts and practice skills. Across grade levels, concepts are reviewed and extended in varying instructional contexts. The distinguishing features of Everyday Mathematics are its focus on real-life problem solving, student communication of mathematical thinking, and appropriate use of technology. This curriculum also emphasizes balancing different types of instruction, using various methods for skills practice, and fostering parent involvement in student learning. Intervention Report Available The Everyday Mathematics® intervention report is available. The WWC has examined 76 studies of interventions for Elementary School Math to date. 0 studies on Everyday Mathematics® that meet evidence standards 4 studies on Everyday Mathematics® that meet evidence standards with reservations 57 studies on Everyday Mathematics® that do not meet evidence screens 0 studies on Everyday Mathematics® are currently in review http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/Intervention.a...04&pg=topic.asp -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Elisa Posted: Feb 5 2007, 02:19 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 607 Member No.: 64 Joined: 31-October 05 Below is a link to the University of Chicago's site on Everyday Math. It has been bitterly contested by parents in many of the district's that have adopted it. While it is still used in several district's, many have dropped it from their curriculum. http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/about.shtml ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 02:21 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Intervention Reports Intervention: Everyday Mathematics® Everyday Mathematics, published by Wright Group/McGraw-Hill, is a core curriculum for students in kindergarten through grade 6 covering numeration and order, operations, functions and sequences, data and chance, algebra, geometry and spatial sense, measures and measurement, reference frames, and patterns. At each grade level, the Everyday Mathematics curriculum provides students with multiple opportunities to learn concepts and practice skills. Across grade levels, concepts are reviewed and extended in varying instructional contexts. The distinguishing features of Everyday Mathematics are its focus on real-life problem solving, student communication of mathematical thinking, and appropriate use of technology. This curriculum also emphasizes balancing different types of instruction, using various methods for skills practice, and fostering parent involvement in student learning. View the Intervention Report in PDF http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/PDF/Interventi...Math_091406.pdf View Technical Appendices in PDF http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/PDF/Interventi...endix04_207.pdf View the Intervention Report in HTML http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/PDF/Interventi...ath_091406.html View Technical Appendices in HTML http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/PDF/Interventi...ndix04_207.html http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/InterventionRe...?iid=207&tid=04 -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Elisa Posted: Feb 5 2007, 02:23 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 607 Member No.: 64 Joined: 31-October 05 Elmhurst Press Friday January 14, 2000 If math were a color ... by Marcia Tsicouris In 1993/94 District 205 adopted the University of Chicago Everyday Math project as its K-5 curriculum and currently utilizes it to some degree in the middle schools and at the high school level. Since then, it has come up for review and the committee elected to re-instate it for another term. Why? I can only deduce the decision was based on economics and not the program's effectiveness. Everyday Math does not require the purchase of textbooks or workbooks. Copies are made from masters or other copies. We purchased the program only a few years after it went on the market. Is it possible to include Everyday Math among those of best practices after such a short time? The U of C acknowledged some of its shortcoming and published an optional Skills Link supplement in July 1998. Everyday Math. On which days exactly is this program effective? If you're a 5th grader, maybe it works on the days you have art. Or, possibly, on the days you study nutrition, or on the days you discuss weather conditions. In lieu of practicing long division or mastering multiplication facts our 5th graders spend math time on exercises such as this: If math were a color, it would be --, because --. If it were a food, it would be --, because --. If it were weather, it would be --, because --. If this type of, so called, math activity takes you by surprise, I'll allow time here for primal screams as did the author of the Wall Street Journal article where I first learned of this particular atrocity. (I verified its occurrence with my 5th grader!) In 4th grade, my son's fraction assignment was marked wrong when he identified 1/5 of the dogs pictured on his Home Link as being spotted. After checking it myself and talking with the teacher I found the copy quality was so poor it was nearly impossible to detect that a 2nd dog out of 5 was spotted. 1st through 3rd graders are encouraged to become dependent on calculators, peers, and parents to accomplish their goals. Calculators are introduced early and often. Internationally, U.S. students' math scores ranked among the lowest in the world. Countries with the highest scores, Japan, China, and East Asian countries don't permit the use of calculators until high school. They feel students must first master the concepts and operations necessary for mathematical problem solving. Everyday Math lessons are based on a spiraling curriculum providing no room for mastery in any one area. New concepts are introduced one after another assuming children will pick up on the material as it is sporadically revisited throughout the year. It's difficult to find two of the same type of math problem on any one Home Link. (If you do, its likely your child's teacher has opted to supplement with worksheets from other programs such as Addison Wesley.) In an attempt to promote problem solving skills, many exercises are done in groups. Unfortunately, it is not possible to develop mathematical problem solving skills without the basic tools necessary to arrive at a correct answer. However, Everyday Math is not concerned with correct answers. This program prefers to emphasize the creative processes used to arrive at any answer. I hope my financial advisor, banker, pharmacist, etc. don't share the U of C's position on this. A math problem isn't solved until you've reached the correct answer. Like a carpenter, a students' problem solving skills are useless with out proper tools! Everyday Math places no importance on math facts, and no benchmarks are established in the program for mastering them. In place of math facts, students are required to learn a multitude of algorithms. Defenders of the program insist this clumsy process provides each student the opportunity to select the algorithm that works best for him/her. Yet, in 5th grade, instructions continue to specify which algorithm to use for the assignment. Virtually every Home Link is prefaced with the words: Show someone at home; Have someone at home; With someone at home; Tell someone at home. The message sent to my 3rd grader is that she's incapable of doing math independently. Thanks to this program, essentially, she is incapable. I have to re-teach each concept as it arises (in addition to teaching basic math facts) because the U of C sees no merit in mastery. Some may argue they like the program. As with Whole Language, there is a small population of students that possess a natural aptitude for the subject. These students will excel regardless how effective or ineffective the program. Whole Language is a testament to that. For the majority, Everyday Math will create generations of math disabled students as Whole Language created generations of reading disabled students. Back to the ridiculous 5th grade exercise: If math were a color, it would be black and white, for math is an exact science with concrete, absolute, correct solutions. If it were a food, it would be something high in nutrition like fruits and vegetables, as these would nourish and develop the brain. If it were weather, it would be clear, bright and crisp to keep skills sharp and the mind alert. Given our students are burdened with Everyday Math; the color of math is gray and fuzzy with little importance placed on correctness and none placed on mastery. The food choice is junk food with little nutritional value serving only to clog arteries and provide immediate gratification. And, weather, no doubt, it's a tornado whose spiraling winds leave our students strewn at the bottom of the scale. By my calculations, Everyday Math equates to educational malpractice! Check it out yourself. There are some great websites on the Internet. One of my favorites is Mathematically Correct, at http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com. Marcia Tsicouris Elmhurst, Illinois ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 02:26 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Parents criticize "Everyday Math" program By Lynda Wellman STAFF WRITER The New Milford [CT] Spectrum December 17, 2004 www.spectrum.newmilford.com/story.php?id=60664 Parents who are unhappy with the current math program used in New Milford elementary schools are urging the Board of Education to expedite a review of the program. Beth Pitcher, the mother of three elementary school children, told members of the school board Tuesday night that students are not learning basic math facts or standard math procedures in the current "Everyday Math" program. "Everyday Mathematics" is the result of a collaboration between the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project author team, mathematicians, education specialists, and classroom teachers. It's published by Wright Group/McGraw-Hill. Ms. Pitcher and others believe that "calculators are introduced too early" and standard long division is "barely taught" in "Everyday Math." Parents say there is mounting evidence the program does not work and point out that states that have adopted "Everyday Math" are reconsidering its effectiveness. "If California can admit a mistake, why shouldn't the town of New Milford admit a mistake and take steps to correct it?" Ms. Pitcher asked. Bev Regan, the principal at Sarah Noble Intermediate School, however, asked the board to consider the strengths of the current program and if members decide not to continue using "Everyday Math" that the replacement program include those strengths. Mrs. Regan is a former high school math teacher and math curriculum coordinator for the system. "Math test scores have never been higher," she told the board Tuesday. "It is a proven program that is giving our students great success." Mrs. Regan said students do memorize basic facts and are taught long division but do not spend months doing it. She said the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has said very few people today do long division using paper and pencil, they use calculators. But she stressed that students are taught the basics. Parent Cathy Farrell questioned the basis for the current mathematics standards. She said states across the country were given federal financial incentives to adopt "constructivist math programs" that are basically "watered down math". As a result, she said, "We are simply not competing in the world." Ms. Farrell urged the school board to use the "What Works Clearinghouse as a guide" for choosing a new math program and to make choosing a new program a priority. Monica Harcken, a former middle school math teacher, said students need a more sequential approach in which they master skills before moving on to new skills. She said colleges report that freshmen need more remedial math help. Sandy Ho said children learn in stages in the best math programs starting with fundamentals. "This is a sad, sad story with many casualties," she said, adding that a cure is available. Ms. Ho said the board could choose whether to debate the diagnosis or start the treatment. The school board took no action Tuesday. Administrators are reviewing the math curriculum. [A box or sidebar in the article pulled out this: "If California can admit a mistake, why shouldn't the town of New Milford admit a mistake and take steps to correct it?" Beth Pitcher Mother of three elementary students] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to the NYC HOLD main page or to the News page or to the Letters and Testimony page. http://www.nychold.com/art-newmilford-041217.html -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 02:48 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Teachers speak out at school board meeting; Everyday Math not working by Wes James Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:13 PM CST "The Seneca R-7 School Board began their January 18 meeting, as usual, by approving the consent agenda: agenda, minutes, financial report and expenditures.... John Wydick then read the letter aloud: “My name is John Wydick. I am a fourth grade teacher and I have been designated to speak on behalf of the teaching staff at Seneca Elementary School. “We as the elementary staff, with the knowledge of Mrs. Barnes, feel that now is the time to state our position on our current math curriculum, Everyday Math. “Soon after fully implementing the program, we discovered that it does not meet the needs of the majority of our students. It is our professional judgment that the topics and skills that are left out prohibits students from building the foundation that they need in middle school, high school, college and the real world. We also determined Everyday Math’s “spiral process” of teaching one method one day, another method the next and then an entirely unrelated topic leaves students confused and frustrated. “Mrs. Barnes has allowed us to supplement the program to help meet the needs of our students; however, the philosophy of the program that if students don’t get it now, they’ll get it later, doesn’t work. For students to engage in ‘higher-order thinking’ in math, they need to master basic operations first. We are professionals and our job is to teach the students. If we are collectively seeing that what we’re doing isn’t reaching the majority of students, then we need to research and evaluate curriculum and find what will work. The elementary staff would like to form a committee and do just that. We need a curriculum that not only addresses our GLES, but introduces, reinforces and expects mastery of critical thinking and computation skills meeting the needs of a wider range of students.” At the conclusion of the reading applause broke out in the room. A copy of the letter was presented to board members...." -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 03:02 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Put two and two together By ELIZABETH CARSON Here's a math problem for you: Count the excuses people are trotting out for why schoolkids in New York City and State did poorly in the latest round of math scores. The results showed just 57% of the city's and 66% of the state's students performing at grade level - and a steady decline in achievement as kids got older. It's about family income, said an article in The New York Times. "The share of students at grade level in affluent districts was more than twice as big as in impoverished urban districts." It's about unfair funding levels, said state education Secretary Richard Mills. It's about class size, said activist Leonie Haimson. Wrong again, claimed other observers. The real culprit was a new test. If, like me, you're running out of fingers - and patience - there's a reason. Nobody spinning the test scores is zeroing in on the single biggest reason math achievement in New York City and state lags and will continue to lag: Our schools use a far-too-fuzzy curriculum that fails to give kids rigorous instruction in the basics. In New York City, the program required in the vast majority of schools is called Everyday Mathematics. Chancellor Joel Klein swears by it. If you ask administrators to explain it, they'll use just enough jargon to make it sound decent. But the truth is, Everyday Math systematically downplays addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, which everyone knows are the foundations for all higher math. Instead of learning those basic four operations like the backs of their hands, students are asked to choose from an array of alternative methods, such as an ancient Egyptian method for multiplication. Long division is especially frowned upon. There are no textbooks; that would just be too traditional. Instead, the idea is that kids ought to sit in groups, while a "facilitator" - that's the teacher - helps. And, oh, one more thing: Calculators are introduced in kindergarten. Not every single piece of the program is hogwash. But taken in total, the curriculum is soft enough to let down thousands upon thousands of our children. That's why it was rejected - twice - in the careful curriculum analysis process they use in California. As Matthew Clavel, a former teacher, has written about his fourth-grade class in the South Bronx, "The curriculum's failure was undeniable: Not one of my students knew his or her times tables, and few had mastered even the most basic operations; knowledge of multiplication and division was abysmal." But don't take my word - or Clavel's word - for it. A 2004 study by the National Research Council said that programs including Everyday Math, known as "reform" or "constructivist" math, lack evidence of effectiveness. And the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics last month released new guidelines emphasizing core math skills - a tacit admission that what so many American schools have been teaching for so long is wrong. We have two choices. We can stick to this curriculum and keep making excuses every time we get bad results. Or we can embrace proven methods, like those used in Singapore, Japan and many California schools, which have followed those examples and are seeing big gains. Carson is co-founder and executive director of NYC HOLD, an advocacy organization. Originally published on October 16, 2006 -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 03:06 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 An interesting blog entry... Octtober 18, 2006 Everyday Math on Long Division The authors of Everyday Math do not believe it is worth the time and effort to develop highly efficient paper-and-pencil algorithms for all possible whole number, fractions and decimal division problems.…It is simply counterproductive to invest hours of precious class time on such algorithms. The math payoff is not worth the cost, particularly because quotients can be found quickly and accurately with a calculator. -- from the Everyday Math Teacher's Guide This quote is from Barry Garelick's article A textbook Case of Textbook Adoption in which he describes the games played by the publishers of Everyday Math and used by the Washington DC school board (and many other school boards) to justify the adoption of this controversial elementary math program. In case you forgot. Out of the 61 studies touted by the proponents of Everyday Math, none fully met the What Works Clearinghouse's criteria. Four studies met with reservervation, and 57 did not meet at all. Out of the four studies that met with reervations, three had statistically insignificant results and the fourth was conducted by a researcher affiliated with Everyday Math and has refused to release his data. My school district adopted Everyday Math just this year. There was no protest by parents or a fight of any kind. They're all sheeple. Needless to say, I'm teaching my son math at home. Posted by KDeRosa at 5:52 PM -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 03:12 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS "The elementary school teachers of San Antonio voted overwhelmingly to drop EM because it didn't work for them nearly as well as what it had replaced." (Web posting by Dr. Wayne Bishop of California State University on Math Forum, 3-19-2001; http://www.math forum.org/epig�/5.0.2.1.2.2001031913145.08d2e620@exchange.calstatela. ed) "San Antonio ISD dropped EM after several years and in spite of rising test scores. Why were the scores rising? Because most schools and individual teachers were learning to leave EM on the shelf and do their own thing with whatever materials they could scrounge while EM took the credit." (Web posting by Dr. Wayne Bishop on Math Forum, 11-8-2001; http://www.mathforum.org/epi�/5.1.0...033c9ec0@exchan ge.calstatela.ed) -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com new school mom Posted: Feb 5 2007, 03:17 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 Interesting studies on this program, why then do you think the committee likes it so much?? Math Trailblazers was the other pilot program. My son is in first grade, so this is our first experience--I have been satisfied with the cirriculum thus far, but first grade math is fairly simple. The teacher likes it, and she feels the kids are farther ahead in math this year than in years past (she has taught first grade for 9 years)....not sure how I will feel about this program as it is taught in the older grades. thanks for the researched input. Also, my understanding was that there was no consistent math program in place prior to this recommendation and many teachers were having to piece materials together and there were different teaching standards across the district. BoaterDan Posted: Feb 5 2007, 03:20 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 These are obviously posts that point out the negative about EM. Is there research that suggests it is effective? Why is it effective in some cases and unsuccessful in others? I don't ask these questions to challenge any of the articles posted or opinions of those that posted them... what I'd really like to see is if Alles has done this research herself and presents a thorough and balanced analysis. What are the details of our "pilot" program? Within our district, how has the effectiveness of EM compared to the students in the other programs been tested and documented? Will the report of the pilot test be made available to the public? Surely there is a thorough report already so board members can review it, right? ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 03:20 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Take a look at these evaluations from around the country. Trailblazers is also a new-new or "fuzzy" math program. http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/moreem -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 03:48 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Out of the 61 studies touted by the proponents of Everyday Math, none fully met the What Works Clearinghouse's criteria. Four studies met with reservation, and 57 did not meet at all. Out of the four studies that met with reservations, three had statistically insignificant results and the fourth was conducted by a researcher affiliated with Everyday Math and has refused to release his data. http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/Intervention.a...04&pg=topic.asp -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Morrocomole Posted: Feb 5 2007, 03:54 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 232 Member No.: 413 Joined: 6-June 06 ...and the fourth was conducted by a researcher affiliated with Everyday Math and has refused to release his data. Uh oh A refusal to release data usually means the outcome was not what was desired. -------------------- Vote for Citizens and Customers, not Incumbents and Friends ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 03:54 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 5 2007, 03:20 PM) These are obviously posts that point out the negative about EM. Is there research that suggests it is effective? Why is it effective in some cases and unsuccessful in others? I don't ask these questions to challenge any of the articles posted or opinions of those that posted them... what I'd really like to see is if Alles has done this research herself and presents a thorough and balanced analysis. What are the details of our "pilot" program? Within our district, how has the effectiveness of EM compared to the students in the other programs been tested and documented? Will the report of the pilot test be made available to the public? Surely there is a thorough report already so board members can review it, right? Unfortunately, many parents in Everyday Math districts would give Kumon or other learning Centers the credit for their district's rise in math scores. I would think that you would be hard pressed to find Everyday Math in impoverished areas. It seems to have flourished in suburban settings, where parents will take up the slack and/or can afford the tutoring. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com BoaterDan Posted: Feb 5 2007, 04:00 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 5 2007, 03:48 PM) Out of the 61 studies touted by the proponents of Everyday Math, none fully met the What Works Clearinghouse's criteria. Four studies met with reservation, and 57 did not meet at all. Out of the four studies that met with reservations, three had statistically insignificant results and the fourth was conducted by a researcher affiliated with Everyday Math and has refused to release his data. http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/Intervention.a...04&pg=topic.asp Then the board should love it! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 04:02 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 They love to go against research don't they? They apparently believe that they know better. I wonder what their thoughts and feelings will be on this issue. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com fyi Posted: Feb 5 2007, 04:04 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 2,738 Member No.: 206 Joined: 9-December 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 5 2007, 04:02 PM) They love to go against research don't they? They apparently believe that they know better. I wonder what their thoughts and feelings will be on this issue. If LPS administration likes it, I'm sure they will too! -------------------- http://www.electpatricemang.com/ http://www.stevefutrell.com/ http://www.eileenmcdonnell.com/ VOTE MAY 8TH!!! Jimid Posted: Feb 5 2007, 04:05 PM Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 3,064 Member No.: 1 Joined: 5-October 05 I hope our Board of Education members have done their homework before they "rubber stamp" this. This is far more important than anything Mr. Whitehead has to say tonight. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 04:25 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 "California, ever on the cutting edge of educational reforms, enthusiastically embraced Fuzzy Math in the early nineties only to watch state math scores plummet. In 1996, California registered one of the worst scores of all 50 states on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. By the end of 1997, the State Board of Education realized its mistake and produced sensible standards that encouraged more traditional math instruction. Other states that experimented with Fuzzy Math have started to see the light as well. “The pendulum is swinging back to the more traditional approach to education,” says one administrator in Massachusetts." http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_3_7_03mc.html -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 04:45 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 5 2007, 03:17 PM) Interesting studies on this program, why then do you think the committee likes it so much?? Math Trailblazers was the other pilot program. My son is in first grade, so this is our first experience--I have been satisfied with the cirriculum thus far, but first grade math is fairly simple. The teacher likes it, and she feels the kids are farther ahead in math this year than in years past (she has taught first grade for 9 years)....not sure how I will feel about this program as it is taught in the older grades. thanks for the researched input. Also, my understanding was that there was no consistent math program in place prior to this recommendation and many teachers were having to piece materials together and there were different teaching standards across the district. I highly encourage you to read all you can in the area of reform math. As the parent of a first grader, your child will be profoundly affected by the adoption of such a program. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Aunt Bea Posted: Feb 5 2007, 05:59 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 161 Member No.: 460 Joined: 17-August 06 I have a third grade student who has been part of the Math pilot this year. Her teacher has spent a great deal of time as part of the Math Curriculum Committee. This committee is made up of educators who have been working for some time now on reviewing different packages that were available and testing them in our community. People on this blog tend to lump Ms. Alles in with their negative feeligns about the Administration, but I just want to urge you not to be so quick to cast aside the hard work of a dedicated group of teachers that worked to select this committee because you have picked up some negative blog entries off the internet. I hope that the community will be willing to put some faith in the teaching professionals in this community who have trained to evaluate curriculum for our students. I for one am not a teacher, and I send kids to school rather than home-school them because others have the expertise that I can not possibly have if I have not trained in a particular area. I know that people feel strongly that they have a new role of being "watch dogs" of all things LPS, but there has to be a balance of when you let people do the job that they are educated and paid to do. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 06:23 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 It will be interesting to hear how they will counteract the lack of support for this program. It doesn't have a solid foundation in research. Experts in math have listed it's serious shortcomings, parents have lobbied for it's end and district's around the country have abandoned it. How is this a good thing for LPS? -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com jen Posted: Feb 5 2007, 06:26 PM 5th Grade Group: Members Posts: 25 Member No.: 453 Joined: 10-August 06 Aunt Bea, I don't think there should be any letting up on LPS for any reason anytime soon. They have NO ONE that holds them responsible for anything and in my opinion that needs to change. Thank you to those of you that speak out and go to the board meetings. momoffour Posted: Feb 5 2007, 08:05 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 181 Member No.: 231 Joined: 15-December 05 I have friends in the Plymouth /Canton school district and they have nothing good to say about this math program. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 08:47 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (Aunt Bea @ Feb 5 2007, 05:59 PM) I have a third grade student who has been part of the Math pilot this year. Her teacher has spent a great deal of time as part of the Math Curriculum Committee. This committee is made up of educators who have been working for some time now on reviewing different packages that were available and testing them in our community. People on this blog tend to lump Ms. Alles in with their negative feeligns about the Administration, but I just want to urge you not to be so quick to cast aside the hard work of a dedicated group of teachers that worked to select this committee because you have picked up some negative blog entries off the internet. I hope that the community will be willing to put some faith in the teaching professionals in this community who have trained to evaluate curriculum for our students. I for one am not a teacher, and I send kids to school rather than home-school them because others have the expertise that I can not possibly have if I have not trained in a particular area. I know that people feel strongly that they have a new role of being "watch dogs" of all things LPS, but there has to be a balance of when you let people do the job that they are educated and paid to do. Bea, apparently you didn't read the information compiled by the "What Works Clearinghouse. The What Works Clearinghouse was established in 2002 by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences to provide educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public with a central and trusted source of scientific evidence of what works in education. Their aren't any studies that meet their evidence screen in support of the benefits of Everyday Math. http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/Intervention.a...04&pg=topic.asp -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Jimid Posted: Feb 5 2007, 08:50 PM Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 3,064 Member No.: 1 Joined: 5-October 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 5 2007, 08:47 PM) QUOTE (Aunt Bea @ Feb 5 2007, 05:59 PM) I have a third grade student who has been part of the Math pilot this year. Her teacher has spent a great deal of time as part of the Math Curriculum Committee. This committee is made up of educators who have been working for some time now on reviewing different packages that were available and testing them in our community. People on this blog tend to lump Ms. Alles in with their negative feeligns about the Administration, but I just want to urge you not to be so quick to cast aside the hard work of a dedicated group of teachers that worked to select this committee because you have picked up some negative blog entries off the internet. I hope that the community will be willing to put some faith in the teaching professionals in this community who have trained to evaluate curriculum for our students. I for one am not a teacher, and I send kids to school rather than home-school them because others have the expertise that I can not possibly have if I have not trained in a particular area. I know that people feel strongly that they have a new role of being "watch dogs" of all things LPS, but there has to be a balance of when you let people do the job that they are educated and paid to do. Bea, apparently you didn't read the information compiled by the "What Works Clearinghouse. The What Works Clearinghouse was established in 2002 by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences to provide educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public with a central and trusted source of scientific evidence of what works in education. Their aren't any studies that meet their evidence screen in support of the benefits of Everyday Math. http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/Intervention.a...04&pg=topic.asp Thats my point. It is not a few "negative blog entries" as Aunt Bea suggests. We have intelligent people in our city. Present all sides of a story and they will make the right decisions. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 08:54 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Maybe you missed this too... "A 2004 study by the National Research Council said that programs including Everyday Math, known as "reform" or "constructivist" math, lack evidence of effectiveness. And the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics last month released new guidelines emphasizing core math skills - a tacit admission that what so many American schools have been teaching for so long is wrong." -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Recalla Posted: Feb 5 2007, 09:11 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 233 Member No.: 437 Joined: 4-August 06 So what the heck is/ was wrong with traditional math??? I for one am tired of hearing that my daughters teacher is says it's ok to reference a multiplication table or use a calculator for completing math at school and at home. In my day, a calculator was taboo in grade school - in high school too. -------------------- JOIN ME IN VOTING FOR PATRICE MANG, EILEEN McDONNELL AND STEVE FUTRELL ON MAY 8TH 4kids Posted: Feb 5 2007, 09:34 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 526 Member No.: 295 Joined: 29-January 06 QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 5 2007, 09:11 PM) So what the heck is/ was wrong with traditional math??? Yes, what is wrong with "traditional" math? Seems to me that "Every Day Math" is an improvement to traditional math, same as Coke's New Recipe was to be an improvement over their traditional formula. Coke learned their lesson didn't they. -------------------- VOTE McDONNELL, MANG and FUTRELL MAY 8TH garfield Posted: Feb 5 2007, 10:12 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 68 Member No.: 452 Joined: 10-August 06 I don't have any research for you, but what I can tell you is that Everyday Math has worked in Plymouth Canton. The program was implemented about 7 or so years ago. We use a very old edition, but are getting the newer edition next year. The program is not without its faults. The adjustments are not easy for children, teachers, or parents, but as the years went on, the program has become easier for everyone. The program does have "textbooks". They are consumable and are bought each year for the children. The newer editions of the program are much better. They have changed many lessons, put more focus on math facts, and added remedial and enrichment activities. The algorithms they teach the children are confusing to the parents and teachers at first, but I have to admit each child picks a different one in order to complete a problem. "Traditional" math is taught along with all the other ways. The children are required to try all the ways, but the purpose is for them to choose the one that works best for them. I have never seen kids do so well in math. They use problem solving skills and "traditional" skills. I'm not a big test person, but you can't argue with PCCS math MEAP scores. BoaterDan Posted: Feb 5 2007, 10:46 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 Garfield, don't you see how a decision to spend $500,000 and have the impact on these students' future like this needs more evidence than finding some neighboring group that likes the idea? I don't mean that's not valuable for something, but it should be just part of the mix. I thought the 90% "re-up" rate that was reported across the state was much more convincing than a couple of districts. Basic statistics 101 - the smaller the sample the more meaningless the conclusions. This is particularly interesting to me having been part of a process to select multi-million dollar software for my employer. I have said numerous times that based on that experience I'd write a thesis on the psychology of selling big-ticket software if I were getting a graduate degree. I believe the same principles apply here. We must keep in mind that the publishers of this material have one goal - to make money selling it. They are not primarily altruistic, looking out for our best interests or out to make the world a better place by making smarter kids. If you had a program with no unbiased research evidence to support its effectiveness, and you know that the key to any program/system is the training provided in delivering it and the enthusiasm generated in the teachers involved... where do you spend your marketing dollars? Is the $180,000 "free" implementation services a good will gesture because they love our kids so much, or the way to create emperical evidence on the successfulness of the product without having to worry about those pesky research studies that question it? The teacher that came to the microphone to speak mentioned the "research" and said a few times "putting all the research aside". At one point she said "because you can find research to prove anything you want." Was she saying that she's discounting the (arguably faulty) research supporting the effectiveness and basing her judgment mostly on personal success, or that she's discounting the fact that the research is questionable? Sometimes I wish the audience could question these people. I do not mean to question the quality of the review process, or the abilities of those involved in the evaluation. I'm just saying it's POSSIBLE, from what I've learned the hard way, that this company employs the same tactic I've seen big-ticket software vendors use - to identify a person or group of people who can be persuaded to influence the decision in your favor and then pour on the propaganda, avoiding those people that come from an unfavorable or even purely objective point of view. Kudos to Markurian for asking a question of substance about some of the objections people have raise about the program. Of course, it went totally unanswered. Totally unanswered. I find that VERY unsettling. And next week they'll approve $480,000 to buy the program, and that will be the end of it. BoaterDan Posted: Feb 5 2007, 10:52 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 Oh, let me just say one more thing for the record before the bashing begins... I've been looking at my kids' Connected Math very closely because some of the same objections were raised about it at the beginning of the year. I have not found glaring examples to support most of those objections. And in fact I kind of like the program from what I can tell from watching over my kids. So, I am not inherently against these new programs as opposed to "traditional" math. My point is simply that if you're going to spend a half million dollars and potentially mess with my kids' future in a negative way you should at least come to the board addressing these MAJOR concerns head on. (BTW, neither Alles nor the math coordinator person brought up any negative "issues" of this product until Markurian asked and were obviously fully prepared to just skip right over them if she hadn't. What the heck kind of complete objective analysis report is that?) ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 5 2007, 10:56 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 A letter to a School Board in California... Honorable School Board Members, My name is Jo Anne Cobasko, I represent Save Our Children from Mediocre Math, which seeks “Math Choice” immediately so all CVUSD students have access to a CA approved math curriculum. Reasons to Support “Math Choice” The Everyday Math (EM) curriculum was rejected by the State Board of Education, it is does not meet the CA Math Standards. EM delays the memorization of basic math facts beyond the grades required by the CA Math Standards. EM does not emphasize nor reinforce pencil and paper computational skills. EM advocates for the use of calculators beginning as early as Kindergarten providing a crutch to students who fail to memorize their math facts. EM does not teach the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division, leaving students ill prepared for advanced mathematics such as algebra and calculus. EM is poorly presented, covers far too many topics with little depth, and it does not promote mastery of basic skills. EM is a “discovery” based curriculum, which requires students to invent, construct, or “discover” their own algorithms. EM encourages teachers to act as facilitators to assist students in discovery, not as experts providing direct instruction in mathematics. According to the National Research Council, there is no body of valid research that proves the effectiveness of Everyday Math; therefore it must be considered “experimental.” Few teachers have the mathematical understanding necessary to convey the conceptual theories of the unusual algorithms used in the EM curriculum. This is clearly demonstrated in the district’s video. The use of esoteric algorithms limits the ability of parents to provide assistance to struggling students at home. Private tutoring firms flourish in districts that use Everyday Math. Economically disadvantaged students suffer the greatest harm as these parents can not afford private tutoring. EM is not aligned with the annual standardized tests which measure student achievement. Over 220 Professors of Mathematics and Science including department heads from Caltech, Stanford, Harvard, and Yale, 7 Nobel Laureates and winners of the Fields Medal, the highest honor bestowed in mathematics, all endorsed an open letter to the US Secretary of Education publicly denouncing Everyday Math and other similar programs in a full page add in the Washington Post. The School Board needs to reconsider the decision to approve the use of Everyday Math. The State Board of Education rejected it for failing to meet CA Math Standards. The decision to adopt Everyday Math for use in our schools is seriously limiting the academic and economic futures of all Conejo Vallley Unified School District students. Implement Math Choice immediately and reverse the damage inflicted by this grossly inadequate math curriculum. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com garfield Posted: Feb 5 2007, 10:57 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 68 Member No.: 452 Joined: 10-August 06 I was just giving you some information based on someone that has used the program. I understand your point. Please don't take my post as anything more than information. Maybe I will have some time to find the research you are looking for, but it won't be for awhile. I don't know the process in Livonia, but I can't mention curriculum decisions are made without pilots and other involvement. MHL Posted: Feb 5 2007, 11:07 PM 1st Grade Group: Members Posts: 5 Member No.: 192 Joined: 6-December 05 QUOTE (Aunt Bea @ Feb 5 2007, 06:59 PM) I have a third grade student who has been part of the Math pilot this year. Her teacher has spent a great deal of time as part of the Math Curriculum Committee. This committee is made up of educators who have been working for some time now on reviewing different packages that were available and testing them in our community. People on this blog tend to lump Ms. Alles in with their negative feeligns about the Administration, but I just want to urge you not to be so quick to cast aside the hard work of a dedicated group of teachers that worked to select this committee because you have picked up some negative blog entries off the internet. I hope that the community will be willing to put some faith in the teaching professionals in this community who have trained to evaluate curriculum for our students. I for one am not a teacher, and I send kids to school rather than home-school them because others have the expertise that I can not possibly have if I have not trained in a particular area. I know that people feel strongly that they have a new role of being "watch dogs" of all things LPS, but there has to be a balance of when you let people do the job that they are educated and paid to do. Aunt Bea, First I want to say that my question wasn't posed because I have negative feelings about the administration or Mrs. Alles. Secondly, I didn't get my information from "some negative blog entries off the internet." I came across a review of Everyday Math written by an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Tennessee. http://www.lit.net/orschools/critique5_too.pdf She wrote about the flaws in the studies that support Everyday Math. She also gave some examples of how math is taught using Everyday Math. In addition, she noted some of the topics that the authors of Everyday Math do not think are important to teach to our children. It concerned me because I have been through curriculum changes that didn't work. garfield Posted: Feb 5 2007, 11:08 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 68 Member No.: 452 Joined: 10-August 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 5 2007, 10:56 PM) EM does not emphasize nor reinforce pencil and paper computational skills. EM does not teach the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division, leaving students ill prepared for advanced mathematics such as algebra and calculus. EM is a “discovery” based curriculum, which requires students to invent, construct, or “discover” their own algorithms. These statements are just not true. My kids do computation problems everyday. There is an additional teacher's book with just the algorithms in it. All the algorithms that are taught throughout the program are in this additional book. "Traditional" is in this book. I think your best bet would be to preview the materials. You will see that there are computation problems everyday and the kids are taught a variety of methods for solving problems. Please understand I did say the program was not perfect. I really think you should preview the materials before drawing any conclusions. BoaterDan Posted: Feb 5 2007, 11:14 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (garfield @ Feb 5 2007, 10:57 PM) I was just giving you some information based on someone that has used the program. I understand your point. Please don't take my post as anything more than information. Maybe I will have some time to find the research you are looking for, but it won't be for awhile. I don't know the process in Livonia, but I can't mention curriculum decisions are made without pilots and other involvement. Yes, and multi-million dollar software purchases are not made without an investigation process. The problem is from I've seen the process is often inherently flawed. I'm just wondering out loud if there's not potential for this process to be flawed in some of the same ways. In my mind, the fact that the presentors were planning to skip over any negative issues is pretty telling that it was significantly flawed. As has been mentioned, these are not blogger wackos being critical of change - this is the US Department of Education saying there's no proof of its effectiveness. Surely, in an objective analysis process that MAJOR fact should have been given considerable attention. For example, knowing this fact I would have done an analysis of the MEAP scores where the program has been implemented. Just plot a district's MEAP scores relative to state averages and note the point at which the program was implemented, and then see if the line tends to take a sharp turn upward or what. Showing three districts that use the program and have better math MEAP scores than LPS shows absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip. It couldn't possibly be more utterly devoid of significance. To me it's an embarrassment that's how the case was made. |
 LPS Reform Blog++++LPS Salary List 12/07 LPS Salary List 6/09 Contact me at: LPSReformer@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 07:32 PM Post #4 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old forum 2 Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic anothervoice Posted: Feb 5 2007, 11:42 PM Principal Group: Banned Posts: 57 Member No.: 297 Joined: 4-February 06 Isn't this new math program supposed to be in line with the MI standards? isn't that why they are purchasing it? NFarquharson Posted: Feb 6 2007, 12:06 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 5 2007, 10:56 PM) Over 220 Professors of Mathematics and Science including department heads from Caltech, Stanford, Harvard, and Yale, 7 Nobel Laureates and winners of the Fields Medal, the highest honor bestowed in mathematics, all endorsed an open letter to the US Secretary of Education publicly denouncing Everyday Math and other similar programs in a full page add in the Washington Post. If this is true (which I have not had time to check, but I certainly will,) then I appologize to all of the people on the committee that is recommending it, but I think we should start over. If the main reason to go with this program is to align with the MEAP, then this would be the worst possible case of "teaching to the MEAP," a test that most teachers seem to think is flawed itself. Does that make sense? -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 6 2007, 12:59 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Check out the Open Letter... http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Aunt Bea Posted: Feb 6 2007, 07:00 AM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 161 Member No.: 460 Joined: 17-August 06 As for the Calculator rumor... My third grader has not had one assignment in Everyday Math where she has been asked/required to use a calculator so I'm not sure where this rumor is coming from or if that example is from a particular grade level. Just want to be clear that this is not about a bunch of kids sitting around using calculators. I find that it requires a whole lot more problem solving skills than the "old math" homework that was front and back 40 problems with one direction at the top of the page. "SOLVE". Question- How many of you that are bashing it have been using Everyday Math this year? NFarquharson Posted: Feb 6 2007, 07:27 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 There is no calculator rumor. If you look right at the UCSMP web site http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/ where the program was developed, you will see the following statement: Appropriate Use of Technology Everyday Mathematics teaches students how to use technology appropriately. The curriculum includes many activities in which learning is extended and enhanced through the use of calculators. At the same time, all activities in which calculators would function simply as crutches for basic computation are clearly marked with a "no calculator" sign. "Calculator use has been shown to enhance cognitive gains in areas that include number sense, conceptual development, and visualization. Such gains can empower and motivate all teachers and students to engage in richer problem-solving activities." -NCTM Position Statement I don't understand why you would consider the posting of newspaper articles, available research and the comments of partents who are concerned with student learning to be "bashing." I think this is good discussion and we should dig deeper to see whether this program is right for our students. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! new school mom Posted: Feb 6 2007, 07:28 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (Aunt Bea @ Feb 6 2007, 07:00 AM) Question- How many of you that are bashing it have been using Everyday Math this year? I agree. And maybe have a little more faith in the teacher committee that has been working on this for 1 year. Administration and BOE criticism is one thing (I am usually all for that!!), now you are criticizing our teachers, because they are the ones who are recommending this program, and that's who stand behind it. NFarquharson Posted: Feb 6 2007, 07:30 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 6 2007, 07:28 AM) QUOTE (Aunt Bea @ Feb 6 2007, 07:00 AM) Question- How many of you that are bashing it have been using Everyday Math this year? I agree. And maybe have a little more faith in the teacher committee that has been working on this for 1 year. Administration and BOE criticism is one thing (I am usually all for that!!), now you are criticizing our teachers, because they are the ones who are recommending this program, and that's who stand behind it. Teachers are human, too. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! NFarquharson Posted: Feb 6 2007, 08:00 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 Here is an interesting article on mathmatics: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/Vol_3/3_3/q2-1.asp It includes this statement: Calculator use for classwork Results from the 2000 mathematics assessment suggest a relationship between student-reported calculator use for classwork and mathematics performance that is markedly different at grade 4 than at grades 8 and 12. At grade 4, more frequent calculator use was associated with lower scores, while at grades 8 and 12 the opposite was generally true: students who said they use calculators more often tended to score higher than their peers who reported using them less frequently (figure F). -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! Morrocomole Posted: Feb 6 2007, 08:02 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 232 Member No.: 413 Joined: 6-June 06 We also should not fear to look at other countries math programs that are reportedly turning out students that excel well beyond US students. There may be proven long standing programs out there that can assist US students in keeping pace in a global marketplace. This is most important to think ahead and beyond our own borders. -------------------- Vote for Citizens and Customers, not Incumbents and Friends BoaterDan Posted: Feb 6 2007, 08:04 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 6 2007, 07:28 AM) QUOTE (Aunt Bea @ Feb 6 2007, 07:00 AM) Question- How many of you that are bashing it have been using Everyday Math this year? I agree. And maybe have a little more faith in the teacher committee that has been working on this for 1 year. Administration and BOE criticism is one thing (I am usually all for that!!), now you are criticizing our teachers, because they are the ones who are recommending this program, and that's who stand behind it. In the opinion of this voter, this is a perfect example of the problem with the way we're running this district. A board member asks an important critical question about the program and the issues she raises are ignored. Instead of that raising red flags and causing even more questions, everybody just stops asking questions because they don't want to offend the committee. I think one subtle change in the selection process would go a long way, and that is to have someone with a business analysist or poject management background as part of the team. Their job is to push the team to find reasons to challenge each selection and provide an objective analysis of the risks associated with each one. That is basic and common practice in the business world when making a choice of this magnitude. I am not meaning to be critical of any individual member of the committee. However, the fact that neither of the people representing this choice could answer a significant tough question suggests to me that there was a skill set missing from the team. That's a conclusion based on a few minutes of watching them and I certainly don't know the background of all the team members, but Alles and the math coordinator were not too reassuring. I believe that it would turn out that with a little coaching there is plenty of talent on the committee to have addressed this head on. You'll recall last night the math coordinator spoke of how LPS teachers had "unspiraled" the current system because they didn't believe so much in that technique. These are clearly bright and capable people. They could have said something simply like "one of the big criticism of these programs, by parents and many mathematics professionals, is the use of calculators. We teachers in LPS have always favored memorization of basic math facts and even today do not use calculators nearly as much as suggested by the authors." Address them head on, don't skate around them. And to be clear, I mean to suggest the burden is on Liepa and the board, not the committee. It's a subtle thing, but the body language and tone of the board's questions certainly have the ability to influence the thinking of the committee between an approach of "find the program that is the most exciting" and "find the program for which there is the most research proving its effectiveness" or something in between. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 6 2007, 08:15 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 6 2007, 07:28 AM) QUOTE (Aunt Bea @ Feb 6 2007, 07:00 AM) Question- How many of you that are bashing it have been using Everyday Math this year? I agree. And maybe have a little more faith in the teacher committee that has been working on this for 1 year. Administration and BOE criticism is one thing (I am usually all for that!!), now you are criticizing our teachers, because they are the ones who are recommending this program, and that's who stand behind it. Are concerned parents supposed to set the research aside (did you see the affiliations of those who signed the open letter?) in favor in sparing the teacher's feelings? Instead of calling for faith, I think we should be calling for answers. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Morrocomole Posted: Feb 6 2007, 08:21 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 232 Member No.: 413 Joined: 6-June 06 Please present both sides of the evaluations of this program. I am interested in seeing the data on the pro's as well as the con's. Quite obviously the research and analysis presented against this program have some very rich data and are associated with many respectable names, institutions, degrees and agencies. Does anyone have the same for the support of this program? Please post. I want to read those also. -------------------- Vote for Citizens and Customers, not Incumbents and Friends fyi Posted: Feb 6 2007, 08:37 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 2,738 Member No.: 206 Joined: 9-December 05 http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/about.shtml#research About Everyday Mathematics Research & Development Everyday Mathematics is a research-based curriculum developed by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. UCSMP was founded in 1983 during a time of growing consensus that our nation was failing to provide its students with an adequate mathematical education. The goal of this on-going project is to significantly improve the mathematics curriculum and instruction for all school children in the U.S. Development of Everyday Mathematics began with a research phase. During this phase, the authors of the curriculum reviewed a rich body of existing research on children's mathematical thinking and on curriculum and instruction. They also interviewed hundreds of K-3 children and surveyed instructional practices in other countries. Based on their findings, the authors established several basic principles that have guided the development of Everyday Mathematics. These principles are: Students acquire knowledge and skills, and develop an understanding of mathematics from their own experience. Mathematics is more meaningful when it is rooted in real life contexts and situations, and when children are given the opportunity to become actively involved in learning. Teachers and other adults play a very important role in providing children with rich and meaningful mathematical experiences. Children begin school with more mathematical knowledge and intuition than previously believed. A K-6 curriculum should build on this intuitive and concrete foundation, gradually helping children gain an understanding of the abstract and symbolic. Teachers, and their ability to provide excellent instruction, are the key factors in the success of any program. Previous efforts to reform mathematics instruction failed because they did not adequately consider the working lives of teachers. With these principles in mind, the Everyday Mathematics author team began developing the curriculum. Starting with kindergarten, Everyday Mathematics was developed one grade level at a time. Each grade level went through a three-year development cycle that included one year of writing, a year of extensive field testing in a cross section of actual classrooms, and a year of revising before final publication. All seven grade levels were written by the same core of authors, in collaboration with a team of mathematicians, education specialists and classroom teachers. This unique development process has resulted in a comprehensive K-6 curriculum that provides a consistent high quality, and a sequence of instruction that carefully builds upon and extends the knowledge and skills of the previous year. For more information on research associated with Everyday Mathematics, click HERE. Scope & Sequence Developments over the past 20 years have led to a tremendous increase in the importance of mathematics in a growing number of occupations, and in daily life. As a result, the goal of achieving mathematical literacy for all citizens has become a national priority. By today's definition, mathematical literacy means that adults need to have a range of sophisticated mathematical knowledge and skills that extends far beyond basic calculation skills. The authors of Everyday Mathematics believe that it is crucial to begin laying the groundwork for mathematical literacy at an earlier age than offered in traditional programs. Based on their own research, and other supporting research, the authors also firmly believe that children are capable of learning a great deal more than previously expected. For this reason the scope of the K-6 Everyday Mathematics curriculum includes the following mathematical strands: Algebra and Uses of Variables Data and Chance Geometry and Spatial Sense Measures and Measurement Numeration and Order Patterns, Functions, and Sequences Operations Reference Frames By developing the curriculum one grade level at a time, the authors were able to carefully map out a sequence of instruction that interweaves concepts from each of these content strands throughout the curriculum. Because very few people learn a new concept or skill the first time they experience it, the curriculum is structured to provide multiple exposures to topics, and frequent opportunities to review and practice skills. A concept or skill that is informally introduced in kindergarten, for example, will be revisited, developed and extended numerous times, and in a variety of contexts, throughout the year and into later grades. For summaries of content by grade level, select below: Content By Grade Level K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Return to top of page Curriculum Features There are a number of features that distinguish the Everyday Mathematics curriculum. These include: Real-life Problem Solving Everyday Mathematics emphasizes the application of mathematics to real world situations. Numbers, skills and mathematical concepts are not presented in isolation, but are linked to situations and contexts that are relevant to everyday lives. The curriculum also provides numerous suggestions for incorporating mathematics into daily classroom routines and other subject areas. Balanced Instruction Each Everyday Mathematics lesson includes time for whole-group instruction as well as small group, partner, or individual activities. These activities balance teacher-directed instruction with opportunities for open-ended, hands-on explorations, long-term projects and on-going practice. Multiple Methods for Basic Skills Practice Everyday Mathematics provides numerous methods for basic skills practice and review. These include written and choral fact drills, mental math routines, practice with fact triangles (flash cards of fact families), daily sets of review problems called math boxes, homework, timed tests and a wide variety of math games. Emphasis on Communication Throughout the Everyday Mathematics curriculum students are encouraged to explain and discuss their mathematical thinking, in their own words. Opportunities to verbalize their thoughts and strategies give children the chance to clarify their thinking and gain insights from others. Enhanced Home/School Partnerships For grades 1-3, daily Home Links provide opportunities for family members to participate in the students' mathematical learning. Study Links are provided for most lessons in grades 4-6, and all grades include periodic letters to help keep parents informed about their children's experience with Everyday Mathematics Appropriate Use of Technology Everyday Mathematics teaches students how to use technology appropriately. The curriculum includes many activities in which learning is extended and enhanced through the use of calculators. At the same time, all activities in which calculators would function simply as crutches for basic computation are clearly marked with a "no calculator" sign. "Calculator use has been shown to enhance cognitive gains in areas that include number sense, conceptual development, and visualization. Such gains can empower and motivate all teachers and students to engage in richer problem-solving activities." NCTM Position Statement Return to top of page Everyday Mathematics Development Team Everyday Mathematics is the result of a rich collaboration between the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project author team, distinguished mathematicians, education specialists, teachers-in-residence, and hundreds of classroom teachers. The UCSMP Everyday Mathematics team includes: Authors Max Bell, Director 1st Edition Jean Bell John Bretzlauf Amy Dillard Robert Hartfield Andy Isaacs** James McBride, Director 2nd Edition Kathleen Pitvorec Peter Saecker Robert Balfanz* William Carroll* Sheila Sconiers* Technical Art Diana Barrie *First Edition Only **Second Edition Only Each of the hundreds of field test teachers from a cross-section of schools nationwide also made an invaluable contribution to the development of Everyday Mathematics. Return to top of page The Publisher of Everyday Mathematics Everyday Mathematics is published by Wright Group/McGraw-Hill. The company employs a complete development, marketing, teacher education, sales, and customer service staff to support Everyday Mathematics. This permanent staff is augmented by over 400 teacher consultants who provide training. More information about Wright Group/McGraw-Hill is available at www.wrightgroup.com or at 1-800-382-7670. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Top of Page | Home | Educators | Parents Students | Updates | Contacts Web site copyright © 2003 UCSMP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- http://www.electpatricemang.com/ http://www.stevefutrell.com/ http://www.eileenmcdonnell.com/ VOTE MAY 8TH!!! Morrocomole Posted: Feb 6 2007, 08:43 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 232 Member No.: 413 Joined: 6-June 06 No, not that kind of support. I was speaking of the same type of analytical data and not a "White Paper" written by the publisher who's incentive is simply sales of their product. I need good 3rd party non-partisan data to properly evaluate both sides. Is there any? -------------------- Vote for Citizens and Customers, not Incumbents and Friends BoaterDan Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:10 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (Morrocomole @ Feb 6 2007, 08:43 AM) No, not that kind of support. I was speaking of the same type of analytical data and not a "White Paper" written by the publisher who's incentive is simply sales of thier product. I need good 3rd party non-partisan data to properly evaluate both sides. Is there any? Right. And if none is found then the committee should have become that 3rd party. Based on last night's presentation it seems they did neither. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:22 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Bluebird Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:27 AM 1st Grade Group: Members Posts: 8 Member No.: 255 Joined: 31-December 05 "There's a dark little joke exchanged by educators with a dissident streak: Rip Van Winkle awakens in the 21st century after a hundred-year snooze and is, of course, utterly bewildered by what he sees. Men and women dash about, talking to small metal devices pinned to their ears. Young people sit at home on sofas, moving miniature athletes around on electronic screens. Older folk defy death and disability with metronomes in their chests and with hips made of metal and plastic. Airports, hospitals, shopping malls--every place Rip goes just baffles him. But when he finally walks into a schoolroom, the old man knows exactly where he is. "This is a school," he declares. "We used to have these back in 1906. Only now the blackboards are green." American schools aren't exactly frozen in time, but considering the pace of change in other areas of life, our public schools tend to feel like throwbacks. Kids spend much of the day as their great-grandparents once did: sitting in rows, listening to teachers lecture, scribbling notes by hand, reading from textbooks that are out of date by the time they are printed. A yawning chasm (with an emphasis on yawning) separates the world inside the schoolhouse from the world outside." (Time Magazine, December 11, 2006) Times are changing, so shouldn't schools, so shouldn't math? Many parents just want traditional math because they were tortured with it in grade school and want their kids to be too, or they understand it, or it worked for them. Some other parents say, "I was never any good at math. He inherited his math ability from me." Well, maybe if your child was exposed to a new type of teaching that fit with the times, he would get a chance at being a great mathematician. Don't our professions change with the times? Doesn't your job require more problem solving than rote memorization? Shouldn't education? You'll find a lot of criticism out there concerning Everyday Math because it's one of the up and coming math programs. (More users, more critiques.) There are a lot of parents irritated that the program doesn't match how they learned as children. Much of the state of Michigan has recently adopted the program. (It matches quite well to the Michigan Standards. Don't you want your child to be successful on the MEAP?) Additionally, something like 24 of 28 districts in Oakland County use the program. (MEAP!) You'll find some who blame the success (read: Oakland County) on the ability of the families in higher socio-economic areas to send their children to Kumon. I just took a spin on the EM criticism Internet trail and so many of the opponent blogs, articles and such cite each other. By now you can tell I'm a teacher, I'm sure. I've taught a district that uses EM and one that doesn't (Livonia). I was impressed with the students' abilities to problem solve, reason and think mathematically in the EM district. Their abilities far surpassed the Livonia students and there were far less 'holes', as teachers say, in student knowledge (students were much more well-rounded mathematicians). And -- get this! -- while teaching EM, *NONE* of my students went to Kumon, and they still did well on the MEAP! The adjustment, should Livonia adopt Everyday Math, will be bumpy. (Transition is talked about so much on here, isn't it?) However, I think it's the right choice. Do you want your children to be mathematical thinkers and problem solvers or algorithm robots? fyi Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:28 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 2,738 Member No.: 206 Joined: 9-December 05 Yeah....I knew you were going to say that. My point is I can't find an objective opinion supporting the program. It seems that only the creaters/publishers are the ones that like it. It's like calling a cereal company that makes corn flakes and asking them who they think makes the best corn flakes. Type in "support for Everyday Math" in your search engine and see what you come up with. -------------------- http://www.electpatricemang.com/ http://www.stevefutrell.com/ http://www.eileenmcdonnell.com/ VOTE MAY 8TH!!! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:29 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 You'll find a lot of criticism out there concerning Everyday Math because it's one of the up and coming math programs. (More users, more critiques.) There are a lot of parents irritated that the program doesn't match how they learned as children. It's actually been around for quite awhile (1983). It's neither new or upcoming. It has been around long enough for many districts to adopt it, evaluate it and drop it. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com 49chevy Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:37 AM Answers questioned Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,270 Member No.: 306 Joined: 15-February 06 This is the same program my son uses in Clarenceville. BoaterDan Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:41 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (Bluebird @ Feb 6 2007, 09:27 AM) "There's a dark little joke exchanged by educators with a dissident streak: Rip Van Winkle awakens in the 21st century after a hundred-year snooze and is, of course, utterly bewildered by what he sees. Men and women dash about, talking to small metal devices pinned to their ears. Young people sit at home on sofas, moving miniature athletes around on electronic screens. Older folk defy death and disability with metronomes in their chests and with hips made of metal and plastic. Airports, hospitals, shopping malls--every place Rip goes just baffles him. But when he finally walks into a schoolroom, the old man knows exactly where he is. "This is a school," he declares. "We used to have these back in 1906. Only now the blackboards are green." American schools aren't exactly frozen in time, but considering the pace of change in other areas of life, our public schools tend to feel like throwbacks. Kids spend much of the day as their great-grandparents once did: sitting in rows, listening to teachers lecture, scribbling notes by hand, reading from textbooks that are out of date by the time they are printed. A yawning chasm (with an emphasis on yawning) separates the world inside the schoolhouse from the world outside." (Time Magazine, December 11, 2006) Times are changing, so shouldn't schools, so shouldn't math? Many parents just want traditional math because they were tortured with it in grade school and want their kids to be too, or they understand it, or it worked for them. Some other parents say, "I was never any good at math. He inherited his math ability from me." Well, maybe if your child was exposed to a new type of teaching that fit with the times, he would get a chance at being a great mathematician. Don't our professions change with the times? Doesn't your job require more problem solving than rote memorization? Shouldn't education? You'll find a lot of criticism out there concerning Everyday Math because it's one of the up and coming math programs. (More users, more critiques.) There are a lot of parents irritated that the program doesn't match how they learned as children. Much of the state of Michigan has recently adopted the program. (It matches quite well to the Michigan Standards. Don't you want your child to be successful on the MEAP?) Additionally, something like 24 of 28 districts in Oakland County use the program. (MEAP!) You'll find some who blame the success (read: Oakland County) on the ability of the families in higher socio-economic areas to send their children to Kumon. I just took a spin on the EM criticism Internet trail and so many of the opponent blogs, articles and such cite each other. By now you can tell I'm a teacher, I'm sure. I've taught a district that uses EM and one that doesn't (Livonia). I was impressed with the students' abilities to problem solve, reason and think mathematically in the EM district. Their abilities far surpassed the Livonia students and there were far less 'holes', as teachers say, in student knowledge (students were much more well-rounded mathematicians). And -- get this! -- while teaching EM, *NONE* of my students went to Kumon, and they still did well on the MEAP! The adjustment, should Livonia adopt Everyday Math, will be bumpy. (Transition is talked about so much on here, isn't it?) However, I think it's the right choice. Do you want your children to be mathematical thinkers and problem solvers or algorithm robots? I'm not teacher, but I find it utterly ludicrous that the "lattice" algorithm for multiplication is less tortuous or more effective than the traditional one. How can it possibly be considering it involves extra steps no more inherently apparent to the student than the traditional algorithm? Sure, if you wrap a bunch of games around it and create enthusiasm in the teachers it will work better. Even the authors admit utter ignorance in their teacher manual as to why it should be considered any better. fyi Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:53 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 2,738 Member No.: 206 Joined: 9-December 05 Here's some pros and cons of Everyday Math: http://www.lit.net/orschools/A_Review_of_Everyday_Math.pdf -------------------- http://www.electpatricemang.com/ http://www.stevefutrell.com/ http://www.eileenmcdonnell.com/ VOTE MAY 8TH!!! cmic Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:55 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (Bluebird @ Feb 6 2007, 10:27 AM) "There's a dark little joke exchanged by educators with a dissident streak: Rip Van Winkle awakens in the 21st century after a hundred-year snooze and is, of course, utterly bewildered by what he sees. Men and women dash about, talking to small metal devices pinned to their ears. Young people sit at home on sofas, moving miniature athletes around on electronic screens. Older folk defy death and disability with metronomes in their chests and with hips made of metal and plastic. Airports, hospitals, shopping malls--every place Rip goes just baffles him. But when he finally walks into a schoolroom, the old man knows exactly where he is. "This is a school," he declares. "We used to have these back in 1906. Only now the blackboards are green." American schools aren't exactly frozen in time, but considering the pace of change in other areas of life, our public schools tend to feel like throwbacks. Kids spend much of the day as their great-grandparents once did: sitting in rows, listening to teachers lecture, scribbling notes by hand, reading from textbooks that are out of date by the time they are printed. A yawning chasm (with an emphasis on yawning) separates the world inside the schoolhouse from the world outside." (Time Magazine, December 11, 2006) Times are changing, so shouldn't schools, so shouldn't math? Many parents just want traditional math because they were tortured with it in grade school and want their kids to be too, or they understand it, or it worked for them. Some other parents say, "I was never any good at math. He inherited his math ability from me." Well, maybe if your child was exposed to a new type of teaching that fit with the times, he would get a chance at being a great mathematician. Don't our professions change with the times? Doesn't your job require more problem solving than rote memorization? Shouldn't education? You'll find a lot of criticism out there concerning Everyday Math because it's one of the up and coming math programs. (More users, more critiques.) There are a lot of parents irritated that the program doesn't match how they learned as children. Much of the state of Michigan has recently adopted the program. (It matches quite well to the Michigan Standards. Don't you want your child to be successful on the MEAP?) Additionally, something like 24 of 28 districts in Oakland County use the program. (MEAP!) You'll find some who blame the success (read: Oakland County) on the ability of the families in higher socio-economic areas to send their children to Kumon. I just took a spin on the EM criticism Internet trail and so many of the opponent blogs, articles and such cite each other. By now you can tell I'm a teacher, I'm sure. I've taught a district that uses EM and one that doesn't (Livonia). I was impressed with the students' abilities to problem solve, reason and think mathematically in the EM district. Their abilities far surpassed the Livonia students and there were far less 'holes', as teachers say, in student knowledge (students were much more well-rounded mathematicians). And -- get this! -- while teaching EM, *NONE* of my students went to Kumon, and they still did well on the MEAP! The adjustment, should Livonia adopt Everyday Math, will be bumpy. (Transition is talked about so much on here, isn't it?) However, I think it's the right choice. Do you want your children to be mathematical thinkers and problem solvers or algorithm robots? There is a lot of criticism for a lot of good reason. Can you promise me that MEAP scores WILL go up for all kids? Can you promise me my kids will learn math BETTER with this program and be successful in higher level math classes? Can you guarantee that this program will work and if not how will you fix the problem with the kids that aren't successful? Will you pay for Kumon and the other programs to help get kids up to speed if it fails? Can you promise that ALL teachers will teach this and teach it effectively? All, not just the ones that buy into it, but ALL, even the tenured ones that are on the way out. Too many variables for me and I think the program is not the best choice, but hey, this district's BOE likes to be in the spotlight for making unpopular decisions that are not educationally sound, so... -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! Bluebird Posted: Feb 6 2007, 10:06 AM 1st Grade Group: Members Posts: 8 Member No.: 255 Joined: 31-December 05 The lattice method is taught as a "tool to put in your tool box". It helps students to understand the different ways to decompose and recompose numbers. It's not the end all, be all method to use. Most students don't end up using it in the long run; they use the traditional method. It just helps them to understand the concepts behind the traditional method. In reality, there are over a hundred math lessons in one text for the year. The lattice method is only referred to in a few. Don't get hung up on the lattice method. As for EM not being new, there are three different versions. The first came out in 1983, correct. Lots of districts and big districts would be stupid to adopt new programs with no back-up research. The EM authors have tinkered with the program, listening to teachers and families, to make it better. It is now in it's third edition. More districts have adopted versions two and three because of the changes and research. Compared to all of the elementary textbook adoptions in the state of Michigan (and others), EM is the up and coming choice. |
|
LPS Reform Blog++++LPS Salary List 12/07 LPS Salary List 6/09 Contact me at: LPSReformer@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 07:37 PM Post #5 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 3 fyi Posted: Feb 6 2007, 10:20 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 2,738 Member No.: 206 Joined: 9-December 05 http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/PDF/Interventi...ath_091406.html Character Education September 14, 2006 Everyday Mathematics Program description Everyday Mathematics, published by Wright Group/McGraw-Hill, is a core curriculum for students in kindergarten through grade 6 covering numeration and order, operations, functions and sequences, data and chance, algebra, geometry and spatial sense, measures and measurement, reference frames, and patterns. At each grade level, the Everyday Mathematics curriculum provides students with multiple opportunities to learn concepts and practice skills. Across grade levels, concepts are reviewed and extended in varying instructional contexts. The distinguishing features of Everyday Mathematics are its focus on real-life problem solving, student communication of mathematical thinking, and appropriate use of technology. This curriculum also emphasizes balancing different types of instruction, using various methods for skills practice, and fostering parent involvement in student learning. Research Four studies of Everyday Mathematics met the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards with reservations. These studies included a total of approximately 12,600 students in grades 3–5 from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds and attending schools in urban, suburban, and rural communities in multiple states.1 Effectiveness Everyday Mathematics was found to have potentially positive effects on students’ mathematics achievement. Mathematics achievement Rating of effectiveness Potentially positive effects Improvement index2 Average: +12 percentile points Range: –7 to +25 percentile points Additional program information Developer and contact Developed by University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. Published by Wright Group/McGraw-Hill. 220 East Danieldale Road, DeSoto, TX 75115. Web: www.wrightgroup.com. Telephone: 800-648-2970. Fax: 800-593-4418. Scope of use Curriculum development for Everyday Mathematics began in 1983. The developer reports that the curriculum is used in more than 175,000 classrooms by more than 2.8 million students. A second edition of the curriculum became available in 2001–02. Teaching Everyday Mathematics is structured differently for kindergarten than for grades 1–6. The kindergarten Everyday Mathematics curriculum is composed primarily of activities such as counting games, money exchanges, and puzzles. In grades 1–6, the curriculum is broken into units covering specific topics. The number of units per school year ranges from 9 to 12, depending on the specific grade and the topics covered. Each unit is composed of 7 to 14 individual lessons. The developer offers multiple professional development options, such as user conferences and institutes, onsite professional development programs, and online courses. Cost Curriculum sets are bundled by grade and are available for kindergarten through grade 6 (grade 6 is beyond the scope of this report). For kindergarten, the Core Teacher’s Resource Package costs $162.78 and includes Program Guide and Masters; Teacher’s Guide to Activities; Teacher’s Reference Manual (grades K–3); Minute Math; Assessment Handbook; Home Connection Handbook (grades K–6); Number Grid Poster; Content-by-Strand Poster; and Mathematics at Home (books 1–3). For grades 1–5, the Core Teacher’s Resource Package costs $233.40 and includes Teacher’s Lesson Guides (1 and 2); Teacher’s Reference Manual; Assessment Handbook; Home Connection Handbook (grades K–6); Math Masters; Minute Math+; Posters; Content-by-Strand; and one set of Student Materials (student math journals 1 and 2). Supplemental materials and manipulatives are available separately and vary in price. Research Sixty-one studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Everyday Mathematics. Four studies (Carroll, 1998; Riordan & Noyce, 2001; Waite, 2000; and Woodward & Baxter, 1997) used quasi-experimental designs that met WWC standards with reservations. The remaining fifty-seven studies did not meet WWC evidence screens. The Carroll (1998) study included 76 fifth-grade students in four classrooms from four school districts using Everyday Mathematics and a comparison group of 91 fifth-grade students in four classrooms from similar districts, matched on student demographics and geographical location. The intervention group had used Everyday Mathematics since kindergarten. The comparison group had used traditional basal mathematics texts at all previous grades. The Riordan and Noyce (2001) study included 3,781 fourth-grade students in 67 schools in Massachusetts using Everyday Mathematics and a comparison group of 5,102 fourth-grade students in 78 similar schools, matched on baseline mathematics achievement scores and student demographics. Forty-eight schools in the intervention group had implemented Everyday Mathematics for four or more years (early implementers), and 19 schools had implemented Everyday Mathematics for two or three years (later implementers). The comparison group used 15 different textbook programs representing the instructional norm in Massachusetts, with the most commonly used programs being those published by Addison-Wesley, Houghton-Mifflin, and Scott-Foresman. The Waite (2000) study included 732 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students in six schools using Everyday Mathematics and a comparison group of 2,704 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students in 12 similar schools, matched on baseline math achievement scores, student demographics, and geographical location. The schools in the intervention group were in their first year of implementing Everyday Mathematics. The comparison group used a more traditional mathematics curriculum approved by the school district. The Woodward and Baxter (1997) study included 104 third-grade students in five classrooms in two schools using Everyday Mathematics and a comparison group of 101 third-grade students in four classrooms in one similar school, matched on student demographics and geographical location. The comparison group used the Heath Mathematics curriculum, a more traditional mathematics program. Effectiveness Findings The WWC review of elementary school mathematics curriculum-based interventions addresses student outcomes in mathematics achievement. The Carroll (1998) study reported a statistically significant positive effect of Everyday Mathematics on geometric knowledge. After accounting for pretest differences between Everyday Mathematics students and comparison students, the WWC determined that this finding was substantively important but not statistically significant. Based on this study finding, the WWC categorized the effect of Everyday Mathematics on geometric knowledge as being a substantively important positive effect.3 The Riordan and Noyce (2001) study reported a statistically significant positive effect of Everyday Mathematics on overall math achievement. Using school-level data provided by the authors, the WWC determined that this finding was statistically significant and substantively important for the 48 early-implementing schools. For the 19 later-implementing schools, however, the WWC determined the finding to be substantively important but not statistically significant. Based on this study finding, the WWC categorized Everyday Mathematics as having a statistically significant positive effect on overall math achievement for the 48 early-implementing schools and a substantively important positive effect for the 19 later-implementing schools. The Waite (2001) study reported a statistically significant positive effect of Everyday Mathematics on overall math achievement. After accounting for the misalignment between the school as the unit of assignment and the student as the unit of analysis, the WWC determined that this finding was substantively important but not statistically significant. Based on this study finding, the WWC categorized the effect of Everyday Mathematics on overall math achievement as being a substantively important positive effect. The Waite study reported subtest results (concepts, operations, and problem solving). After WWC calculations, these results were found to be positive but not statistically significant. The subtest analyses do not factor into the rating. The Woodward and Baxter (1997) study reported no significant effect of Everyday Mathematics on overall math achievement. After accounting for pretest differences between Everyday Mathematics students and comparison students, the WWC confirmed this finding. Based on this study finding, the WWC categorized the effect of Everyday Mathematics on overall math achievement as indeterminate. The study also reported subtest results (computation, concepts, and problem solving) and found a statistically significant positive effect on the concepts subtest. WWC calculations revealed a substantively important, but not statistically significant, positive effect for the concepts subtest and a substantively important, but not statistically significant, negative effect for the computations subtest. The subtest analyses do not factor into the rating. Four studies examined outcomes in mathematics achievement: One study (Riordan & Noyce, 2001, 48 early-implementing schools) found statistically significant and positive effects. Three studies (Riordan & Noyce, 2001, 19 later-implementing schools; Carroll, 1998; Waite, 2001) found positive effects. And one study (Woodward & Baxter, 1997) found indeterminate effects. Rating of effectiveness The WWC rates interventions as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, or negative. The rating of effectiveness takes into account four factors: the quality of the research design, the statistical significance of the findings (as calculated by the WWC), the size of the differences between participants in the intervention condition and the comparison condition, and the consistency of the findings across studies (see the WWC Intervention Rating Scheme/. The WWC found Everyday Mathematics to have potentially positive effects on mathematics achievement. The WWC found Everyday Mathematics to have potentially positive effects on mathematics achievement Improvement index For the math achievement outcomes, the WWC computed an improvement index based on the effect size (see the Technical Details of WWC-Conducted Computations). The improvement index represents the difference between the percentile rank of the average student in the intervention condition versus the percentile rank of the average student in the comparison condition. Unlike the rating of effectiveness, the improvement index is entirely based on the size of the effect, regardless of the statistical significance of the effect, the study design, or the analysis. The improvement index can take on values between –50 and +50, with positive numbers denoting favorable results. The average improvement index for mathematics achievement is +12, with a range of –7 to +25. Summary The WWC reviewed 62 studies on Everyday Mathematics. Four studies met WWC evidence standards with reservations. These four studies found potentially positive effects on mathematics achievement. The remaining studies did not meet WWC evidence standards. References Met WWC evidence standards with reservations Carroll, W. M. (1998). Geometric knowledge of middle school students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 98(4), 188–197. Additional sources: Carroll, W. M., & Isaacs, A. (2003). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curriculum: Where are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (Study: Geometric knowledge of fifth- and sixth-grade students.) Riordan, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(4), 368–398. Waite, R. D. (2000). A study of the effects of Everyday Mathematics on student achievement of third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students in a large north Texas urban school district. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(10), 3933A. (UMI No. 9992659). Woodward, J., & Baxter, J. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 373–388. Did not meet WWC evidence screens ARC Center. (2000a). Everyday Mathematics: Glendale, CA. In The ARC Center’s implementation stories from the field. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from www.comap.com/elementary/projects/arc//stories/glendaleprint.htm.4 ARC Center. (2000b). Everyday Mathematics: Kent, WA. In The ARC Center’s implementation stories from the field. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from www.comap.com/elementary/projects/arc//stories/kentprint.htm.4 ARC Center. (2000c). Everyday Mathematics: Portage, WI. In The ARC Center’s implementation stories from the field. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from www.comap.com/elementary/projects/arc//stories/portageprint.htm.4 ARC Center. (2003). The ARC Center tri-state student achievement study: Executive summary. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from www.comap.com/elementary/projects/arc/The%20ARC%20Center%20Tri-State%20Student%20Achievement%20Study.pdf.5 Baxter, J., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five third-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 529–547.4 Briars, D. J. (2004, July). The Pittsburgh story: Successes and challenges in implementing standards-based mathematics programs. Paper presented at the Everyday Math Users’ Conference.5 Briars, D. J., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Standards, assessments—and what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement (CSE Technical Report 528). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student testing, & Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from www.cse.ucla.edu/CRESST/Reports/TECH528.pdf.6 Carroll, W. M. (1993). Mathematical knowledge of kindergarten and first-grade students in Everyday Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.5 Carroll, W. M. (1995a). Report on the field test of Fifth Grade Everyday Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, Elementary Component.7 Carroll, W. M. (1995b). Third grade Everyday Mathematics students’ performance on the 1993 and 1994 Illinois state mathematics test. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.5 Additional sources: Carroll, W. M., & Isaacs, A. (2003). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curriculum: Where are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (Study: Third-grade Illinois state test.) Carroll, W. M. (1996a). A follow-up to the fifth-grade field test of Everyday Mathematics: Geometry, and mental and written computation. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.5 Carroll, W. M. (1996b). Mental computation of students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 96(6), 305–311.5 Carroll, W. M. (1996c). Use of invented algorithms by second graders in a reform mathematics curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(2), 137–150.4 Carroll, W. M. (1997). Results of third-grade students in a reform curriculum on the Illinois state mathematics test. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 237–242.5 Carroll, W. M. (2000). Invented computational procedures of students in a standards-based curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 111–121.5 Carroll, W. M. (2001a). A longitudinal study of children in the Everyday Mathematics curriculum. (Available from University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, http://socialsciences.uchicago.edu/ucsmp/EvalRep.pdf)6 Additional sources: Carroll, W. M., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Achievement results for fourth graders using the standards-based curriculum Everyday Mathematics. Unpublished manuscript. Carroll, W. M., & Fuson, K. C. (n.d.) Performance of U.S. fifth graders in a reform-math curriculum compared to Japanese, Chinese, and traditionally-taught U.S. students. Unpublished manuscript. Carroll, W. M., Fuson, K. C., & Drueck, J. D. (n.d.) A longitudinal study of second and third graders using the reform curriculum Everyday Mathematics by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. Unpublished manuscript. Carroll, W. M. (2001b). Students in a standards-based mathematics curriculum: Performance on the 1999 Illinois State Achievement Test. Illinois Mathematics Teacher, 52(1), 3–7.5 Carroll, W. M., Fuson, K. C., & Diamond, A. (2000). Use of student-constructed number stories in a reform-based curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(1), 49–62.4 Carroll, W. M., & Isaacs, A. (2003a). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curriculum: Where are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (Study: Mental computation and number sense of fifth graders.)5 Carroll, W. M., & Isaacs, A. (2003b). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curriculum: Where are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (Study: Multidigit computation in third grade.)5 Carroll, W. M., & Isaacs, A. (2003c). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curriculum: Where are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (Study: School district studies: HVRSD.)5 Carroll, W. M., & Porter, D. (1994). A field test of Fourth Grade Everyday Mathematics: Summary report. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, Elementary Component.5 Drueck, J. V. (1996, April). Progression of multidigit addition and subtraction solution methods in high-, average-, and low-math-achieving second graders experiencing a reform curriculum. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.6 Drueck, J. V., Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M., & Bell, M. S. (1995, April). Performance of U.S. first graders in a reform math curriculum compared to Japanese, Chinese and traditionally taught U.S. students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.5 Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996a). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. Chicago: Author. (Study: Greensburg Salem and Everyday Mathematics.)5 Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996b). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. Chicago: Author. (Study: Illinois Goals Assessment Program performance.)5 Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996c). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. Chicago: Author. (Study: Kalamazoo success story.)6 Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996d). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. Chicago: Author. (Study: Northwestern University analysis of students.)5 Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996e). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. Chicago: Author. (Study: UCSMP fourth grade field test.)5 Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996f). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. Chicago: Author. (Study: UCSMP in Wheeling, Illinois.)4 Fuson, K. C., & Carroll, W. M. (n.d.). Summary of comparison of Everyday Math (EM) and McMillan (MC): Evanston student performance on whole-class tests in grades 1, 2, 3, and 4. Unpublished manuscript.5 Additional sources: Carroll, W. M., & Fuson, K. C. (1998). A comparison of Everyday Math (EM) and McMillan (MC) on Evanston student performance on whole-class tests: Recommendations for revision of Everyday Mathematics Grades 1, 2, 3, and 4. (Available from Karen C. Fuson, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, 2115 N. Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208-2610.) Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M., & Drueck, J. V. (2000). Achievement results for second and third graders using the standards-based curriculum Everyday Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 277–295.5 Hedges, L. V., Stodolsky, S. S., & Mathison, S. (1987). A formative evaluation of Kindergarten Everyday Mathematics (Evaluation report #86/87-KEM-1). Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.4 Mathematics Evaluation Committee of the Hopewell Valley Regional School District. (1997). Mathematics evaluation report: Year two. Pennington, NJ: Hopewell Valley Regional School District.5 McCabe, K. J. (2001). Mathematics in our schools: An effort to improve mathematics literacy. Masters Abstracts International, 40(04), 835. (UMI No. 1407560)5 Murphy, L. A. (1998). Learning and affective issues among higher- and lower-achieving third-graders in math reform classrooms: Perspectives of children, parents, and teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(12), 4358. (UMI No. 9913852)6 Northwestern University Longitudinal Study of Everyday Mathematics. (1998). Fourth-grade feedback on specific lessons. Unpublished report.4 Sconiers, S., Isaacs, A., Higgins, T., McBride, J., & Kelso, C. R. (2003). The ARC center tri-state student achievement study. Lexington, MA: The Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications.5 Additional sources: SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author. (Study: Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington achievement study.) SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001a). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. Chicago: Author. (Study: California SAT-9.)5 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001b). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. Chicago: Author. (Study: Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.)5 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001c). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. Chicago: Author. (Study: Illinois Standards Achievement Test.)8 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001d). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. Chicago: Author. (Study: Kentucky Commonwealth Accountability Testing System.)5 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001e). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. Chicago: Author. (Study: Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System.)5 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001f). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. Chicago: Author. (Study: MAT-7 in Wichita, Kansas.)5 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001g). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. Chicago: Author. (Study: Michigan Educational Assessment Program.)6 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001h). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. Chicago: Author. (Study: Pennsylvania State Assessment System.)8 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001i). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. Chicago: Author. (Study: SAT-9 in Santa Ana, California.)5 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001j). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author. (Study: Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.)5 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001k). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author. (Study: Illinois Standards Achievement Test.)5 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001l). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4.Chicago: Author. (Study: Kentucky Core Content Test.)5 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001m). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author. (Study: Michigan Educational Assessment Program.)5 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001n). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author. (Study: North Carolina ABCs Accountability Model.)6 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001o). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author. (Study: South Carolina Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test.)6 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001p). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author. (Study: Stanford-9 in Tucson, Arizona.)4 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001q). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author. (Study: Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program.)6 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001r). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author. (Study: Texas Assessment of Academic Skills.)6 SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001s). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author. (Study: Washington Assessment of Student Learning.)5 Footnotes 1 The evidence in this report is based on available research. Findings and conclusions may change as new research becomes available. 2 These numbers show the average and the range of improvement indices for all findings across the four studies. 3 The level of statistical significance was calculated by the WWC and corrects for clustering within classrooms or schools and for multiple comparisons. For an explanation see the WWC Tutorial on Mismatch. See the Technical Details of WWC-Conducted Computations for the formulas the WWC used to calculate statisticalsignificance. In the case of the Everyday Mathematics report, a correction for clustering was needed. 4 Does not use strong causal design: this is a qualitative study. 5 Does not use a strong causal design: the study, which used a quasi-experimental design, did not establish that the comparison group was equivalent to the treatment group at the baseline. 6 Does not use a strong causal design: the study did not use a comparison group. 7 Intervention not relevant: this study evaluated a field test version of the curriculum, not the final version. 8 Does not use a strong causal design: the study, which used a quasi-experimental design, did not establish that the comparison group was equivalent to the treatment group at the baseline in a pretest measure of math achievement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information about specific studies and WWC calculations, please see the WWC Everyday Mathematics Technical Appendices. -------------------- http://www.electpatricemang.com/ http://www.stevefutrell.com/ http://www.eileenmcdonnell.com/ VOTE MAY 8TH!!! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 6 2007, 10:41 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Times are changing, so shouldn't schools, so shouldn't math? Many parents just want traditional math because they were tortured with it in grade school and want their kids to be too, or they understand it, or it worked for them. Are we to simply accept EM because "things change" and "change is good?" Where is the proof, the research that supports this program over more traditional programs? More importantly, how does EM prepare students for the rigors of high school math? The program has been around (in one form or another) for over 20 years. Where is the data? Most of what I have seen is either flawed or statistically insignificant. Parent's can and will accept change when it is clearly shown that it is a change for the better. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 6 2007, 10:48 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 A parent's view from Troy.. The Effect of Chicago Math on Everyday Students This is an open letter to the Troy school district, Troy MI, regarding Chicago Math, which was recently introduced into the curriculum. This is merely one aspect of a frightening trend in elementary education, which we need to reverse, and soon, before school becomes as stressful as a day at the office. Dear Faculty and Staff: I am writing to express my concern about Chicago Math, which is currently being taught in the Troy elementary school system. This program has failed my two daughters, and is not the best choice for our students. First, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Karl Dahlke, and I have always loved mathematics. When I was in elementary school I quickly learned the basics of arithmetic, using the "traditional" method. By traditional, I mean the method most adults use to multiply and divide large numbers. Something like this: 4218 × 39 ------- 37962 12654 ------- 164502 I pursued advanced mathematics in high school, and then in college, obtaining a degree from Michigan State University, and another degree from the University of California Berkeley. The latter is easily one of the top ten graduate math programs in the country. Today I maintain a web site of mathematics at the undergraduate and post graduate level. You can visit it at MathReference.com. Before I attended Berkeley, I interviewed at the University of Chicago. I had a chance to talk to their staff, and I realized that this too was one of the finest math programs in the country. The professors at the University of Chicago tackle some of the most difficult math questions facing us today. I'm not sure why I didn't go there, since I already lived in Illinois. Maybe it was the Chicago winters. :-) In any case, I was a bit surprised to learn that these august professors had developed a math curriculum for elementary students. This is like asking Einstein to write a physics primer for young children. The resulting program is probably perfect for the gifted few who will go on to study math and physics in later life, while it confuses the hell out of the rest of us. Indeed, I believe this is the case with Chicago Math. (I have since learned that "Chicago Math" was not developed by the math department, but rather, the department of education at that university, which is now closed. Some of the math professors would like to distance themselves from "Chicago Math", but at this point it is easier said than done. Anyways, back to the subject at hand.) Consider multiplication and division. The program asks the student to draw various grids and maintain a catalog of intermediate results, with all the zeros in place. This is suppose to teach you, indirectly, that the integers form a ring, and that the traditional method works because of the distributive property of multiplication over addition, the commutative property of addition, and so on. I see where they are going with this program, but nobody else does, least of all the students. I have three children in the Troy school system, which is, by the way, one of the finest school districts in the country, with the best teachers I have ever seen. I am proud to have my children attend these schools. Our students are learning math and getting high scores on standardized tests, primarily because of these teachers, and in spite of Chicago Math. Let me illustrate with my two daughters. (My son is in special education, and is exempt from Chicago Math. He is learning math the traditional way. With all his disabilities, I am glad he does not have to slog through Chicago Math as well. That would simply be too much.) My first daughter, whom I will call Jane, is extremely bright. She is in the program for gifted children, and does well in all her subjects. Nothing slows her down, except Chicago Math. On rare occasions she has come to me in tears, asking for help. I show her what they are asking for, and she understands the process, but still seems confused. She applies it faithfully on the test and gets an A, but doesn't see the point of it all. Despite her keen intellect, she does not grasp the deeper meaning, the "why it all works". And if she doesn't get it, nobody does! And if nobody's getting it, then we may as well teach the traditional way and be done with it. My other daughter, Mary, has an average intelligence and a reading disability. Chicago Math has failed her completely, primarily because it entails a great deal of writing and copying. Intermediate results are scattered all over the page, and you have to be an accountant to keep track of everything. For a girl who is borderline dyslexic, every scratch of the pen is an opportunity for error. She needs to multiply and divide using a process that conserves ink as though it were liquid gold. Intermediate results should be kept to a minimum, and the answer should come together just below (multiplication) or above (division) the problem. In other words, she needs traditional math! I have seen Mary struggle mightily, as Chicago Math presented four awkward algorithms for division. (Yes, they use the word "algorithm". If you don't know what that means, where does that leave our kids?) Perhaps the creators of Chicago Math wanted these four methods to be optional, i.e. select the one that works best and use it to solve the problem, but that is not how Chicago Math is taught in our district. The student is expected to master each method, and is tested on each in turn. By the time the third method fights for territory in my daughter's brain, she is hopelessly confused. Furthermore, none of these methods are traditional, which is exactly what my daughter needs. After a year of confusion and frustration I taught my daughter how to multiply and divide using the traditional method. The problem is solved in a couple lines, rather than a page of scattered intermediate results that must be assembled correctly at the end like a jigsaw puzzle. I was able to teach her these concepts in one evening. She quickly learned how to multiply our phone number by a two digit number, and then we divided our phone number by a two digit number. The entire problem remained within her visual and mental focus at all times. At this point I would like to make a distinction between the kid-friendly story problems, and the confusing algorithms and procedures, introduced by Chicago Math. I like some of the story problems, dividing 47 pieces of candy among three friends, for instance, and I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. We should continue to incorporate these types of real-world problems in our curriculum. However, there is no point in presenting the above story problem until the student can divide 3 into 47, almost without thinking. The process should be automatic, like driving a car. Unfortunately the (otherwise helpful) story problems are brought in far too early in Chicago Math. Having seen several confusing division algorithms, Mary still had no idea how to divide 3 into 47 when the story problems came rolling in. While she was busy looking for "friendly pairs of numbers", (division algorithm number 3), she forgot the story completely. When she finally had an answer, and the book asked what to do with the remainder, Mary had no clue. It took her so long to do the math, she forgot all about the candy and the three friends. The benefits of the story problem were lost, because the confusing algorithms got in the way. As an analogy, you don't teach someone how to read a map and find their way around an unfamiliar city (the story problem) until they are completely comfortable driving the car. The young driver is so busy concentrating on the details of steering and braking, he hasn't got time to read directional signs or consult the map. In fact, the two tasks work against each other, making it impossible to learn either one. Adding insult to injury, Chicago Math teaches you to drive the car by opening up the hood, taking the engine apart, and putting it back together. You are suppose to understand everything from the thermodynamics of internal combustion to the hydraulics of the steering and brakes. When you want to turn right, you are suppose to manipulate all four steering rods with your hands and feet, while keeping your eyes on the road. For a girl who is borderline dyslexic and partly ADD, this is simply impossible. She just wants to drive the car! She doesn't need to know why it works; that comes later. So I showed her how to drive the car in the simplest terms, and she understands. She can now multiply 4218 by 39, as shown above. I just wish we could have skipped the years of confusion and frustration. In summary, I believe the awkward algorithms promoted by Chicago Math are inappropriate for most of our students. A small percentage of gifted children may grasp the deeper meaning, the detailed construction of the car's engine, but most will not. Many children are left behind, and cannot perform the simplest arithmetic operations that we take for granted. This is especially true for the kids who are already struggling. When I was a teen-ager I watched my younger siblings trying to learn the "New Math" that emerged in the late 60's and early 70's. I just shook my head in disbelief. I couldn't see the point of it. Why not teach them the same way I was taught? As Tom Lehrer quipped in his famous parody, "The important thing is to understand what you are doing, rather than to get the right answer." In the 80's New Math faded away, and I heaved a sigh of relief. Now we have Chicago Math, and that's even worse! I guess what goes around comes around. I encourage our school district to return to traditional mathematics, and I hope other districts will follow suit. At the same time, I hope we can retain the valuable aspects of Chicago Math. The alternate algorithms should be made available for the few who do not grasp traditional math, and each child should be allowed to use his favorite method, any method, to solve the problem, as long as he gets the right answer. But traditional math must be taught first, and most students won't need anything beyond that. When arithmetic can be performed automatically, using one method or another, bring in familiar story problems, and the child will put it all together. These are helpful indeed, provided the child has already mastered the basics. But please remember, traditional math, as a mechanical process, must come first. We've been teaching it for centuries, and despite a few fads in the 1970's and 1990's, there is still no better way. Sincerely, Karl Dahlke -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com cecelia Posted: Feb 6 2007, 11:39 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 203 Member No.: 495 Joined: 12-December 06 QUOTE (fyi @ Feb 6 2007, 09:28 AM) Yeah....I knew you were going to say that. My point is I can't find an objective opinion supporting the program. It seems that only the creaters/publishers are the ones that like it. It's like calling a cereal company that makes corn flakes and asking them who they think makes the best corn flakes. Type in "support for Everyday Math" in your search engine and see what you come up with. I admit that I am not ready to take a side on EM math, yet. However, I think it is somewhat objective to say that most districts in Oakland County use EM and they do score better in math than we do. Can all the differences be tied to economic differences? If I as a teacher decided that the children with more money will always do better than my students I don't think I should be taking money for teaching in Livonia. Students here are entitled to teachers who believe in them. In my opinion if other students are doing better than mine I need to seriously consider adopting some or all of their methods or maybe trying something new. Then, Oakland County will be studying what I do because my students will be tops. fyi Posted: Feb 6 2007, 12:04 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 2,738 Member No.: 206 Joined: 9-December 05 Where's The Math? Mathematicians Speak -------------------- http://www.electpatricemang.com/ http://www.stevefutrell.com/ http://www.eileenmcdonnell.com/ VOTE MAY 8TH!!! Strongsupporter Posted: Feb 6 2007, 12:14 PM 6th Grade Group: Members Posts: 34 Member No.: 478 Joined: 28-September 06 QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 6 2007, 12:06 AM) [ If the main reason to go with this program is to align with the MEAP, then this would be the worst possible case of "teaching to the MEAP," a test that most teachers seem to think is flawed itself. Does that make sense? Unfortunately Nancy, people judge a school district's success (or lack thereof) by looking at their MEAP scores. As you said, this might be a terrible example of teaching to the test, but what choice do they have? If all that they do to educate our children is going to be judged by one test, than it's easy to understand why something that allegedly mimics the MEAP is being condsidered. Not having a child in the pilot program makes it hard to know what the program does and doesn't do, but I have to admit that the open letter you mentioned does cause me concern. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 6 2007, 12:17 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (cecelia @ Feb 6 2007, 11:39 AM) QUOTE (fyi @ Feb 6 2007, 09:28 AM) Yeah....I knew you were going to say that. My point is I can't find an objective opinion supporting the program. It seems that only the creaters/publishers are the ones that like it. It's like calling a cereal company that makes corn flakes and asking them who they think makes the best corn flakes. Type in "support for Everyday Math" in your search engine and see what you come up with. I admit that I am not ready to take a side on EM math, yet. However, I think it is somewhat objective to say that most districts in Oakland County use EM and they do score better in math than we do. Can all the differences be tied to economic differences? If I as a teacher decided that the children with more money will always do better than my students I don't think I should be taking money for teaching in Livonia. Students here are entitled to teachers who believe in them. In my opinion if other students are doing better than mine I need to seriously consider adopting some or all of their methods or maybe trying something new. Then, Oakland County will be studying what I do because my students will be tops. Yes, affluent districts with wonderful scores utilize EM. I am able to find pages and pages of parent testimonial that their schools "success" with EM should be attributed to the local learning centers such as Sylvan and Kumon, not EM. Parents in these districts can afford to take up the slack. This program is a huge disadvantage for those kids that have little parental support and are unable to afford outside tutoring. The success of EM relies heavily on both. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 6 2007, 12:22 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Not having a child in the pilot program makes it hard to know what the program does and doesn't do, When other district's pilot programs, they inform the community. They make the textbooks available for preview to interested community members. They take comments and input from stakeholders. They review the research, make it available to the public. They present the results of the pilot to the community. THEN they recommend a program for adoption. Again, LPS has circumvented the process. Your child shouldn't have to be a part of a pilot group to get information. That is just ridiculous. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com BoaterDan Posted: Feb 6 2007, 01:09 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 6 2007, 12:22 PM) Not having a child in the pilot program makes it hard to know what the program does and doesn't do, When other district's pilot programs, they inform the community. They make the textbooks available for preview to interested community members. They take comments and input from stakeholders. They review the research, make it available to the public. They present the results of the pilot to the community. THEN they recommend a program for adoption. Again, LPS has circumvented the process. Your child shouldn't have to be a part of a pilot group to get information. That is just ridiculous. Yeah, and uh.. am I the only one concerned with the kids that have to endure a year in a pilot program that ends up not getting chosen because it doesn't work very well, without the parent ever really knowing what's going on? Is there some kind of opt-out choice given to parents at the beginning of the pilot period? BoaterDan Posted: Feb 6 2007, 01:18 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (cecelia @ Feb 6 2007, 11:39 AM) I admit that I am not ready to take a side on EM math, yet. However, I think it is somewhat objective to say that most districts in Oakland County use EM and they do score better in math than we do. Can all the differences be tied to economic differences? If I as a teacher decided that the children with more money will always do better than my students I don't think I should be taking money for teaching in Livonia. Students here are entitled to teachers who believe in them. In my opinion if other students are doing better than mine I need to seriously consider adopting some or all of their methods or maybe trying something new. Then, Oakland County will be studying what I do because my students will be tops. That may mean something, or it may mean absolutely nothing. It is basic statistics 101 that you can't take two pieces of data and draw the conclusion that there's a cause-effect correlation between them unless you have carefully controlled the test or at least analyzed the results (harder) to remove all other variables. So, let's look at the attempts by researchers to do just that regarding EM. Oops, is the US Department of Education saying there isn't really any such research? Where do we go from there? At the very least we proceed with GREAT caution. Which means there should be some very intense examination of these issues which has apparently not been done in this case. JoJo Posted: Feb 6 2007, 01:25 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 445 Member No.: 331 Joined: 2-March 06 How many other math programs have been looked at? I would think that the BOE members would want to know about a few others before making such a huge financial decision. Not to mention whats the best program for student learning. Is this really the best one out there? amomof2 Posted: Feb 6 2007, 01:25 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 161 Member No.: 110 Joined: 11-November 05 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 6 2007, 01:09 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 6 2007, 12:22 PM) Not having a child in the pilot program makes it hard to know what the program does and doesn't do, When other district's pilot programs, they inform the community. They make the textbooks available for preview to interested community members. They take comments and input from stakeholders. They review the research, make it available to the public. They present the results of the pilot to the community. THEN they recommend a program for adoption. Again, LPS has circumvented the process. Your child shouldn't have to be a part of a pilot group to get information. That is just ridiculous. Yeah, and uh.. am I the only one concerned with the kids that have to endure a year in a pilot program that ends up not getting chosen because it doesn't work very well, without the parent ever really knowing what's going on? Is there some kind of opt-out choice given to parents at the beginning of the pilot period? This is the 3rd program that my son piloted this year, in first grade. I do not recall an opt out option. We were told about it on curriculum night. new school mom Posted: Feb 6 2007, 01:26 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 6 2007, 01:09 PM) Yeah, and uh.. am I the only one concerned with the kids that have to endure a year in a pilot program that ends up not getting chosen because it doesn't work very well, without the parent ever really knowing what's going on? Is there some kind of opt-out choice given to parents at the beginning of the pilot period? "Endure" is not the right word, my son LOVES math and is learning a great deal and is at or ahead of his peers in other first grades classes. If they don't choose this program then I feel he will be ahead of other kids next year. And as for "does the parent ever really know what is going on?" YES--we were informed we were a pilot class in the beginning of the school year--we got tons of information, and frankly, we were made to feel lucky our child is getting this exposure this year. I am very pleased with how my son is doing in math at school--and no, there was no opt-out choice. It is difficult to judge when you don't have a child in the pilot class. Everything LPS does is not evil and wrong...... cecelia Posted: Feb 6 2007, 01:26 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 203 Member No.: 495 Joined: 12-December 06 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 6 2007, 01:18 PM) QUOTE (cecelia @ Feb 6 2007, 11:39 AM) I admit that I am not ready to take a side on EM math, yet. However, I think it is somewhat objective to say that most districts in Oakland County use EM and they do score better in math than we do. Can all the differences be tied to economic differences? If I as a teacher decided that the children with more money will always do better than my students I don't think I should be taking money for teaching in Livonia. Students here are entitled to teachers who believe in them. In my opinion if other students are doing better than mine I need to seriously consider adopting some or all of their methods or maybe trying something new. Then, Oakland County will be studying what I do because my students will be tops. That may mean something, or it may mean absolutely nothing. It is basic statistics 101 that you can't take two pieces of data and draw the conclusion that there's a cause-effect correlation between them unless you have carefully controlled the test or at least analyzed the results (harder) to remove all other variables. So, let's look at the attempts by researchers to do just that regarding EM. Oops, is the US Department of Education saying there isn't really any such research? Where do we go from there? At the very least we proceed with GREAT caution. Which means there should be some very intense examination of these issues which has apparently not been done in this case. Did you read http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/PDF/Interventi...ath_091406.html on an earlier post? cmic Posted: Feb 6 2007, 01:30 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05
|
|
LPS Reform Blog++++LPS Salary List 12/07 LPS Salary List 6/09 Contact me at: LPSReformer@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 07:39 PM Post #6 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 4 Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic NFarquharson Posted: Feb 6 2007, 01:38 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 6 2007, 01:37 PM)
|
|
LPS Reform Blog++++LPS Salary List 12/07 LPS Salary List 6/09 Contact me at: LPSReformer@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 07:41 PM Post #7 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 5 Posted: Feb 6 2007, 07:42 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 6 2007, 07:28 AM) QUOTE (Aunt Bea @ Feb 6 2007, 07:00 AM) Question- How many of you that are bashing it have been using Everyday Math this year? I agree. And maybe have a little more faith in the teacher committee that has been working on this for 1 year. Administration and BOE criticism is one thing (I am usually all for that!!), now you are criticizing our teachers, because they are the ones who are recommending this program, and that's who stand behind it. The problem is too much Faith, and too few Facts. You certinly have the right to Trust the BOE and Administration. I, however, have the right to point out that they have Earned precious liitle of it. -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! loyaltolivonia Posted: Feb 6 2007, 07:45 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 6 2007, 07:40 PM) I appreciate your kind comments. I will check back occasionally to answer any and all questions that I feel I am capable of answering on behalf of the committee. As long as the conversation is constructive, I am happy to comment. I hope you know about pm-ing! You might have a lot of parents asking questions of you that they don't want out here!!! Myself being one of them as I am not very versed in EM or Connected Math or even 6th grade math Just kidding, at least I can get through that still!!! Aunt Bea Posted: Feb 6 2007, 07:45 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 161 Member No.: 460 Joined: 17-August 06 Wow- gone to work today and come back to pages and pages on this topic. I was just about to start responding to posts when I got to the entry from this LPS teacher. Now I find that there is little else I can add to top that. Thank you for your passion, and your work on this committee. I don't think we as parents can really know how demanding all of that committee work can be on top of classroom duties. I watched the video posted a few pages back from the Meterologist in Washington. She gave some helpful illustrations of the differences in approaches, but I also thought she choose some extreme examples. I have mentioned that my child has been part of the pilot and not once have we used a calculator, nor have I seen it suggested as part of the homework instructions. I do see her figuring out things differently, but you know what? The techniques she uses allow her to solve problems that I would have gone looking for a calculator for! (That latice thing threw me for a loop though! Thank god she has not brought that home yet! ) ANYWAY, as I said earlier here, I'm stickin' with our local experts here. How many of those expert researchers that are being quoted here (sorry to offend with the earlier blogger reference) have ever been in front of a classroom of kids? How many of those researchers have been in front of our kids here in Livonia? Please acknowledge the talent and expertise we have here in our district and the UNIQUE perspective that this committee has in selecting a curriculum for our district. They know OUR students, they know the rest of the LPS curriculum, they are familiar with the new Michigan Standards, they know our financial resources/restraints, and all of these other things that go into the mix. new school mom Posted: Feb 6 2007, 07:53 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 6 2007, 07:40 PM) I appreciate your kind comments. I will check back occasionally to answer any and all questions that I feel I am capable of answering on behalf of the committee. As long as the conversation is constructive, I am happy to comment. I don't know who you are concerned teacher, but I hope you are my child's teacher!! thank you for your dedication and hard work. BoaterDan Posted: Feb 6 2007, 08:07 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 6 2007, 07:22 PM) disregard my grammatical errors. very tacky. Disregarded. And thank you so much for that insight from the inside of the process. I hope you understand that with everything that's gone on there is a need for the discussion of some of the "holes" you found and the comparitive analysis you did of them to have been done out in the public. Heck, maybe even involving some volunteer parents from a purely analytical point of view as I mentioned before. Nothing personal was meant by me, really. It is just disturbing that all we got to see in public was the glowing bubbly presentation of how wonderful this program is and what appeared to be glaring lack of honest critique of it. If you wouldn't mind answering a few questions it could possibly ease my mind: Anywhere along the line did you consider the "distortion" in the results that could be caused by the extraordinary enthusiasm surrounding this pilot and perhaps not really attributable to the quality of the program itself? What encouragement and resources did the vendor provide to ensure that enthusiasm in the staff and parents of the pilot program. Did they explain the importance of getting the parents "on board" with the new program, for example? As Jim said, I'm thrilled we're putting this important topic out in the open here and that this forum can be a place to have the discussion we all crave. 49chevy Posted: Feb 6 2007, 08:27 PM Answers questioned Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,270 Member No.: 306 Joined: 15-February 06 We find our son is learning more and understanding better this year with this program, than he was in LPS last year. cmic Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:04 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 6 2007, 08:22 PM) disregard my grammatical errors. very tacky. I love your explanation and I appreciate that you took the time to fill us in on the process. It sure makes a difference. Do you think it is something that must happen this year? With the district being so strapped for money, is this the right time? Teachers can adjust curriculum to meet the standards and benchmarks. Thanks again for your thoughtful response. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! concerned mom Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:17 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 144 Member No.: 343 Joined: 8-March 06 I have heard much about first graders in the EM pilot. Any feedback on the older grades? I am also curious as to why it is only K-4. This committee began it's work before the grade configuration change. Was the original task to find a program for K-6? Why has 5-6 been left out? concerned teacher Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:23 PM 2nd Grade Group: Members Posts: 11 Member No.: 517 Joined: 6-February 07 Being new at this, I don't know how to do that "quote" thing, so in response to "new school mom", YES...I AM! "Boater Dan" Honestly, I can pull loads of encouraging research about EM. Every program we looked at had PLENTY of that and one of the other programs we piloted had very little research to support. Had we gone with that program, we would have had to deal with an "out of the box" adoption, which could have been very scary in itself. I am not saying that EM is the end-all, be-all of math programs BUT it met the committee's criteria, more so than any other program. The committee spent hours aligning EM with our new, state mandated, grade level content expectations and it was a superior match. Other programs met our standards, this program exceeded. That's not to say there won't be areas that need tweaking (not saying there are, but there could be). I am speaking from my first grade bubble remember, but I did sit on a committee that represented all K-4 grade-levels and I hold every committee member in the highest regard. These committee members put their emotional attachments aside and selected a math program that would be most beneficial to our students, your children. Imagine 10 units, 15 lessons per units....lots of copying, overheads etc. over the course of the year. Loads of planning time, personal time, that I give up each week to ensure that I have the necessary materials to teach math to my wonderful first grade friends. Worth every minute. Pros and cons to every program. The program is quality. As far as the pilot... I wasn't enthusiastic about the program from the get-go...for no good reason. I hate change. I put forth my best effort because, like many of the committee members, that's what we signed up for. I gave it a shot. Tested it out. Absolutely, my students were "guinea pigs" (and now would be a great time to apologize to those students I had 9 years ago as a first year teacher...if I had to do it all over again). But seriously, the EM presenter was very informative and spent a lot of time going over the "research". So....ALL RESEARCH ASIDE (it's out there), I didn't feel as enthusiastic as others to take it back to the classroom. I did. It's great. I speak from my heart when I tell you that I believe in this program. The district has been more than accommodating. Monies have been set aside. In response to "if it aint broke, don't fix it", I agree. It was broke...time to fix. This recommendation came from the committee, not the district. I am very pleased that the district has come up with such a long-range plan to support this program. That will be essential. Warehouse will be copying. Student journals will be ordered in the years to come. Manipulatives will be provided. Teachers on board? Enthusiastic teachers? We certainly hope so. I work with many of them. There are hundreds of them in our district. Not every one will buy in, but be realistic. I don't know what you all do for a living, but is every employee wearing a sandwich board promoting, waving flags, about each and every decision that comes along. Probably not. Our committee will be on hand to help implement this program. There is at least one math coach in each building...a "go to" person. Loads of professional development will be offered. Not to mention, our very dedicated math coordinator...this adoption is her baby. She too will stand behind this decision. Parents are my clients. I have taken my parent feedback VERY seriously. No other program that we considered had the home-school connection that EM does. Family letters, helpful homework hints, resource books etc. What I like is that the parents don't need to help because the kids "get it". Kids "teaching" parents math....love that! Parents are an integral part of this program and every program. Hope that answers some of your questions. I am having fun with this, but I can't keep up. This was my day off. My 3-year-old watched Charlotte’s Web three times...maybe four. This is the reason why I have never signed on before. I do have to teach tomorrow....lots of great math! Until then..... concerned teacher Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:30 PM 2nd Grade Group: Members Posts: 11 Member No.: 517 Joined: 6-February 07 Dear cmic, It must happen now. Teachers are dying...money or no money. Your children need to learn. Not all teachers are willing to re-invent the wheel. We have been anticipating this adoption. If this adoption does not happen, I will be the one wearing the sandwich board, collecting enough funds to buy this program for my own classroom. cmic Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:33 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 6 2007, 10:23 PM) Being new at this, I don't know how to do that "quote" thing, so in response to "new school mom", YES...I AM How do you know that you are their teacher? Just curious. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:37 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (cmic @ Feb 6 2007, 09:04 PM) QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 6 2007, 08:22 PM) disregard my grammatical errors. very tacky. I love your explanation and I appreciate that you took the time to fill us in on the process. It sure makes a difference. Do you think it is something that must happen this year? With the district being so strapped for money, is this the right time? Teachers can adjust curriculum to meet the standards and benchmarks. Thanks again for your thoughtful response. CMIC. Do they use this at St. Mikes? -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! cmic Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:39 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (Livonia Voter @ Feb 6 2007, 10:37 PM) QUOTE (cmic @ Feb 6 2007, 09:04 PM) QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 6 2007, 08:22 PM) disregard my grammatical errors. very tacky. I love your explanation and I appreciate that you took the time to fill us in on the process. It sure makes a difference. Do you think it is something that must happen this year? With the district being so strapped for money, is this the right time? Teachers can adjust curriculum to meet the standards and benchmarks. Thanks again for your thoughtful response. CMIC. Do they use this at St. Mikes? No, they don't. They do get exceptional results though. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:40 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 What do they use? Or, what do they do differant than LPS? -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! concerned teacher Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:41 PM 2nd Grade Group: Members Posts: 11 Member No.: 517 Joined: 6-February 07 Dear Concerned Mom, The committee began K-6. The older grades recently adopted Connected Math, so they were not considered for this program. I'm pretty sure it's a K-4 program anyway. 5th grade does take the MEAP, so their scores will reflect this program's success. The 5/6 teachers helped with alignment, as we re-distributed a lot of content and their input was essential. The bar was raised by the state, so the committee had to raise grade-level expectations accordingly. I am currently covering a lot of 2nd grade content in my first grade classroom. I am assuming (as I can't speak for all grades) that each grade will have a lot more to cover in the next few years. Multiplication and division will be taught in 2nd grade now (wow)...and on up. Middle school uses Connected Math. That won't change any time soon. concerned teacher Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:46 PM 2nd Grade Group: Members Posts: 11 Member No.: 517 Joined: 6-February 07 Cmic, I don't know, but if I know my parents as well as I know my students, I'm dead on. concerned mom Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:54 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 144 Member No.: 343 Joined: 8-March 06 Thank you, concerned teacher. You are doing an incredible job of answering all these questions. I just wonder about the 3rd and 4th graders in the program. I would think that it would be more difficult to transition to EM in those grades. cmic Posted: Feb 6 2007, 09:54 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (Livonia Voter @ Feb 6 2007, 10:40 PM) What do they use? Or, what do they do differant than LPS? The 4th graders use the Scott Foresman Addison Wesley textbook. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! cecelia Posted: Feb 6 2007, 10:02 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 203 Member No.: 495 Joined: 12-December 06 Thank you concerned teacher for all your hard work on the committee and with the pilot. Your articulate postings make me proud to teach in the same district as you. concerned teacher Posted: Feb 6 2007, 10:26 PM 2nd Grade Group: Members Posts: 11 Member No.: 517 Joined: 6-February 07 Concerned Mom, Absolutely, it will be a more difficult transition. We will need to close those gaps. Teachers will be receiving EM materials in April on our Professional Development Day. Teachers will be given time to review and revise current curriculum expectations. This will be a learning experience for teachers and students alike. 3rd and 4th grade students will be better off, even if for only a year or two. From what I know, the transition from EM to Connected Math should be a smooth one. concerned teacher Posted: Feb 6 2007, 10:28 PM 2nd Grade Group: Members Posts: 11 Member No.: 517 Joined: 6-February 07 cecelia, you are welcome. new school mom Posted: Feb 7 2007, 07:10 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 6 2007, 09:46 PM) Cmic, I don't know, but if I know my parents as well as I know my students, I'm dead on. I am pretty sure she is dead on as well!!! And she does know her parents and students as well as she thinks she does---we LOVE her!!! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 7 2007, 09:49 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 concerned teacher, Are you able to reference specific studies that give evidence of EM promoting higher achievement over more traditional programs? Some of the brightest minds in math from the most prestigious universities have warned against reform math programs such as EM. One of the major concerns is their avoidance of standard algorithms. How do you address those criticisms? Critics also contend that the "spiraling" aspect of EM leaves children confused and ignores the need for a level of mastery before moving on to another area. Can you comment on the "spiraling" feature? Critics say that the exercises and lack of focus on mastery leaves students poorly prepared for higher level math. Particularly in EM's treatment or lack thereof of fractions, percentage and decimals. Other districts have had the opportunity to look at longitudinal data within their district after the implementation of reform math and have seen the rise in high school students requiring " "math remediation" What is your opinion? Parents in EM district's across the country all have the same complaint: their children lack the necessary computational skills and they must supplement with Kumon or other tutoring services. Some districts even encourage parent's to utilize these services as a component to EM. The calculator is inherent to EM and often listed as the culprit to the poor computational skills evidenced in kids going through the program. Is LPS modifying that part of the program? If so, why adopt a program that requires so many modifications? EM has been adopted and since abandoned by districts across the country. In CA (a state that used reform math exclusively), a district that wants to utilize it must apply for a waiver. Texas also highly utilized reform math programs, now less than 5% of that state's districts use such programs. Assuming that teacher quality is, on average, equal; how do you account for the program's lack luster track record? You mentioned a presentation of the EM program. Was that made by a company salesperson or "technical" person or an outside math expert? The WWC cite's 4 studies that point to the "potential" that EM is effective. After 20 years of use, shouldn't there be more? Many contend that EM is extemely difficult to teach and site the lack of teacher "buy-in" for it's failure in many districts where EM has been dropped. It doesn't take long to find numerous testimonials by frustrated teachers declaring that EM requires too much supplementation and that they often shelf the program and use their own materials. How will LPS avoid this? The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has recently called for a move away from reform math programs in favor of traditional programs. Why is LPS moving in a direction that many are moving away from and respected organizations are questioning? Were traditional programs given any consideration? Houghton Mifflin, Saxon and so on? Thank you for your time and consideration of these issues. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com BoaterDan Posted: Feb 7 2007, 10:29 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 6 2007, 09:23 PM) "Boater Dan" Honestly, I can pull loads of encouraging research about EM. <snip> But seriously, the EM presenter was very informative and spent a lot of time going over the "research". So....ALL RESEARCH ASIDE (it's out there), I didn't feel as enthusiastic as others to take it back to the classroom. I did. It's great. I speak from my heart when I tell you that I believe in this program. <snip> Teachers on board? Enthusiastic teachers? We certainly hope so. I work with many of them. <snip> Parents are my clients. I have taken my parent feedback VERY seriously. No other program that we considered had the home-school connection that EM does. Family letters, helpful homework hints, resource books etc. What I like is that the parents don't need to help because the kids "get it". Kids "teaching" parents math....love that! Parents are an integral part of this program and every program. I hope you're able to continue responding... I really REALLY value your personal opinion as an experienced teacher. Honestly. And to some degree the fact that you personally weren't particularly enthusiastic about this program address some of my concerns. But, please don't say "all research aside". Please understand I don't mean anything personal or to challenge your intelligence or integrity etc. when I say my experience has led me to understand how vendors with a $500,000 sale on the table are trained experts in manipulating the potential customer. The "presenter" is trained to get you to buy (or recommend). They should not be considered to have altruistic goals of helping our kids get the best education. So, the question here regarding research is if the time the presenter spent going over the research was showing you the 57 studies that the US Department of Education says are worthless, or the 4 they refer to "with reservation"? Perhaps the real question is if you were able to locate any research suggesting these programs were less effective than an alternative. Of course the vendor isn't going to show you that. The other area that I don't seem to be expressing very well is the question of whether the program is superior because it gets parents involved OR does is this vendor simply smarter and realizes that any program with more parental involvement will be more successful than the alternative, all else being equal. Let me make an analogy. I'm trying to sell you a car. I show you a quote from the Motor Trent article where the reviewer said "this is the most fun I've ever had driving a car." I don't show you the part that says it rattled like a coffee can full of marbles. I don't show you the Consumer Reports review that says it's completely unreliable. What I must do is get you in the car for a test drive on a location where I can demonstrate its performance. So you walk away with a memory of a car with amazing performance. I give your kid a piece of candy and a helium baloon with a picture of the car on it. My competitor just takes you for the standard test drive around the block. In reality his car performs at least as well as mine and is reliable and better built. So, you have more of a "connection" to my car, and your family members are excited about getting it. Which one do you buy? Again, please don't be insulted. In my experience, this is they way I've seen these kinds of purchases work. Please continue to explain how you don't feel this has been the case here. And thank you again for your service and participation here. fyi Posted: Feb 7 2007, 10:40 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 2,738 Member No.: 206 Joined: 9-December 05 http://www.nychold.com/art-nyt-051109.html 'Innovative' Math, but Can You Count? By Samuel G. Freedman The New York Times November 9, 2005 PENFIELD, N.Y. Last spring, when he was only a sophomore, Jim Munch received a plaque honoring him as top scorer on the high school math team here. He went on to earn the highest mark possible, a 5, on an Advanced Placement exam in calculus. His ambition is to become a theoretical mathematician. So Jim might have seemed the veritable symbol for the new math curriculum installed over the last seven years in this ambitious, educated suburb of Rochester. Since seventh grade, he had been taking the "constructivist" or ' 'inquiry" program, so named because it emphasizes pupils' constructing their own knowledge through a process of reasoning. Jim, however, placed the credit elsewhere. His parents, an engineer and an educator, covertly tutored him in traditional math. Several teachers, in the privacy of their own classrooms, contravened the official curriculum to teach the problem-solving formulas that constructivist math denigrates as mindless memorization. "My whole experience in math the last few years has been a struggle against the program," Jim said recently. "Whatever I've achieved, I've achieved in spite of it. Kids do not do better learning math themselves. There's a reason we go to school, which is that there's someone smarter than us with something to teach us." Such experiences and emotions have burst into public discussion and no small amount of rancor in the last eight months in Penfield. This community of 35,000 has become one of the most obvious fronts in the nationwide math wars, which have flared from California to Pittsburgh to the former District 2 on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, pitting progressives against traditionalists, with nothing less than America's educational and economic competitiveness at stake. In these places and others, groups of parents have condemned constructivist math for playing down such basic computational tools as borrowing, carrying, place value, algorithms, multiplication tables and long division, while often introducing calculators into the classroom as early as first or second grade. Such criticism has run headlong into the celebration of constructivism by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and such leading teacher-training institutions as the Bank Street College of Education. The strife has taken on a particular intensity here in Penfield, perhaps, because the town includes an unusually large share of engineers and scientists, because of the proximity of companies like Xerox, Kodak and Bausch & Lomb. Skilled themselves in math, they have refused to accept the premise that innovation means improvement, and in their own households they have seen evidence to the contrary. FOR Joe Hoover, the epiphany came two years ago when he took his daughter, Kathryn, then in sixth grade, to lunch at McDonald's and realized she could not compute the correct change for their meal from a $20 bill. For Claudia Lioy, it was seeing her daughter, Iris, then in third grade, plodding through a multiplication problem by counting 23 groups of four apples. When Mrs. Lioy pleaded with Iris's teacher simply to show the class a times table, the teacher replied, "But that's drill-and-kill." For Ben Lee, it was having his teenage daughter, Olivia trying to answer probability problems by a method called "guess and check" -- until he pulled out his own 10th-grade math book to instruct her about the appropriate formula. "I don't mind having kids appreciate what they learn," said Mr. Lee, an engineer who now works as a purchasing agent for Kodak. "But it's crazy to make a kid spend a night trying to solve a problem with these rudimentary and feeble tools." By last spring, these parents had discovered one another and their common exasperation with constructivist math. Jim Munch's father, Bill, a software developer at Kodak, drew up a petition asking the Penfield schools to offer pupils the option of taking traditional math. Nearly 700 residents signed it. Last June, the Board of Education turned down the request. Not surprising, school officials here paint a wildly different picture of the new math curriculum than do the critical parents. They point to a slip in Penfield's scores on standardized math tests and Regents exams in the late 1990 's as a catalyst for changing the program. They also note that since the introduction of the constructivist curriculums -- Investigations for elementary school, Connected Math for junior high, Core Plus for high school -- those scores have risen gradually but steadily. In a broad sense, Penfield can be a hard place to make the indictment against constructivism stick. The high school sends 90 percent of its graduates to two-year or four-year colleges, and the mean SAT score stands at 1117 (with 562 on math). In the battle of anecdotes, school officials assembled their own array of parents to praise the new curriculum when this columnist visited Penfield last week. Susan Gray, the superintendent, attributed the criticism of the math program to "helicopter parents" who are accustomed to being deeply involved in all aspects of their children's lives. "Because the pedagogy has changed, the parents who knew the old ways didn't know how to help their children," she said. "They didn't have the knowledge and skills to support their children at home. There's a security in memorization of math facts, and that security is gone now." Yet many of the dissident parents have extensive math backgrounds and thus the ability to criticize the curriculum. It is also true that most of them tolerated the constructivist program for its first several years, until bitter experience drove them into rebellion. Mary Rapp, the assistant superintendent, acknowledged the legitimacy of some complaints. In response, she said, Penfield has begun supplementing the constructivist classes with lessons in computation. Nearly 300 pupils in the district are now receiving remedial classes. A group of teachers worked last summer to revise the math syllabus in the high school in a somewhat more conventional direction. As a result, the district has had to petition the state for a postponement in the Math A Regents exam, from early 2006 to June. Still, in the math wars, tweaking around the edges does not settle the issue. The dispute is fundamental. To its advocates, constructivist math applies the subject to the real world, builds critical thinking skills and rescues classes from numbing repetition. But to those parents in Penfield and elsewhere -- who have children in junior high unable to do long division or multiply two-column numbers, who pay for private tutors or sessions at traditionalist learning centers like Kumon, who wonder why there are so many calculators and so few textbooks -- the words of a recent graduate to the Board of Education ring tragically true. "My biggest fear about going to college," Samantha Meek said at a meeting last spring, "is attending introductory math courses. "How am I going to be able to explain to my professors that I do not understand what they are talking about, that I do not have the same math background as the rest of the students, and that I cannot do mental math and can barely do it with pencil and paper?" ____________________________________________________________________ Concerned Teacher, Will Everyday Math help prepare students for the new high school requirements? Do we know what the long term effects of this type of curriculum are on student learning? Thanks! -------------------- http://www.electpatricemang.com/ http://www.stevefutrell.com/ http://www.eileenmcdonnell.com/ VOTE MAY 8TH!!! kimmie Posted: Feb 7 2007, 10:55 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 65 Member No.: 275 Joined: 11-January 06 Wow, that is a great article and I must say that some of it really hit home with me. Recently, my daughter was having trouble with fractions/decimals. (We have connected math). When I asked her to bring me her book. (Not only did I need a refresher, I needed to know how this was being taught). Well, the book she brought to me was a wookbook. That's right!! There was absolutely no instructional value in this book at all. When I asked the principle about it, her take was, well the teacher goes over and over this in class. Well, that might be fine for those that math comes to naturally, but what about those that need the additional help at home. What about the parents who were much less educated but want to help their children today. Anyways, I left it for my husband to help her (who use to operate Nuculer Battleships and is very educated in Math) and he to was concerned that he did not know how "today's" math was being taught, as not to confuse her. I am going to show him this article as this was not the first circumstance that I thought "geez, what about the old way, how come it is being taught like this". After reading through this whole thread, I have decided to educated myself about the "New Math". kimmie Posted: Feb 7 2007, 10:58 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 65 Member No.: 275 Joined: 11-January 06 Also, when my daughter recently told me that the teacher told her that she could use that calculator, my reaction was, "Oh no your not missy". I had no idea until today that this was standard practice. I don't know what to think????? kimmie Posted: Feb 7 2007, 11:01 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 65 Member No.: 275 Joined: 11-January 06 QUOTE (kimmie @ Feb 7 2007, 10:55 AM) Wow, that is a great article and I must say that some of it really hit home with me. Recently, my daughter was having trouble with fractions/decimals. (We have connected math). When I asked her to bring me her book. (Not only did I need a refresher, I needed to know how this was being taught). Well, the book she brought to me was a wookbook. That's right!! There was absolutely no instructional value in this book at all. When I asked the principle about it, her take was, well the teacher goes over and over this in class. Well, that might be fine for those that math comes to naturally, but what about those that need the additional help at home. What about the parents who were much less educated but want to help their children today. Anyways, I left it for my husband to help her (who use to operate Nuculer Battleships and is very educated in Math) and he to was concerned that he did not know how "today's" math was being taught, as not to confuse her. I am going to show him this article as this was not the first circumstance that I thought "geez, what about the old way, how come it is being taught like this". After reading through this whole thread, I have decided to educated myself about the "New Math". Nuculer=Nuclear concerned teacher Posted: Feb 7 2007, 11:12 AM 2nd Grade Group: Members Posts: 11 Member No.: 517 Joined: 6-February 07 My intentions by responding to the initial posting were good ones. I have provided a brief summary of the process the committee went through, a snapshot of my own personal experiences with EM, and I have done my best to answer the questions I felt I was capable of answering. My expertise is 6 year olds, only 6 year olds. I am a first grade teacher and a mother; both full time jobs. I will not exhaust myself trying to defend this program, nor will I rob my 23 fabulous first graders and my three year old daughter of my time. They are too precious. You wouldn't want your child's teacher spending planning time responding to this web site. I think all of your questions and concerns are valid. I too am concerned about some of the same things. I don't know that there will ever be a program that pleases everyone. We did our best. I can tell you that the next time I volunteer for a committee, I will think long and hard about doing so. Shame on me for wanting what's best for my students, your children. Lesson learned. fyi Posted: Feb 7 2007, 11:25 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 2,738 Member No.: 206 Joined: 9-December 05 Thanks for your participation in this discussion. Your input is much appreciated! With all due respect, the ultimate goal of any new elementary math program should be to help build a better foundation for understanding more advanced math. As a parent of two elementary students, I have serious concerns that Everyday Math will not help them achieve that goal. -------------------- http://www.electpatricemang.com/ http://www.stevefutrell.com/ http://www.eileenmcdonnell.com/ VOTE MAY 8TH!!! kimmie Posted: Feb 7 2007, 11:35 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 65 Member No.: 275 Joined: 11-January 06 QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 7 2007, 11:12 AM) My intentions by responding to the initial posting were good ones. I have provided a brief summary of the process the committee went through, a snapshot of my own personal experiences with EM, and I have done my best to answer the questions I felt I was capable of answering. My expertise is 6 year olds, only 6 year olds. I am a first grade teacher and a mother; both full time jobs. I will not exhaust myself trying to defend this program, nor will I rob my 23 fabulous first graders and my three year old daughter of my time. They are too precious. You wouldn't want your child's teacher spending planning time responding to this web site. I think all of your questions and concerns are valid. I too am concerned about some of the same things. I don't know that there will ever be a program that pleases everyone. We did our best. I can tell you that the next time I volunteer for a committee, I will think long and hard about doing so. Shame on me for wanting what's best for my students, your children. Lesson learned. I believe that you have alleviated more of the fears than created new ones regarding the pilot program so please don't be disgruntled. I don't think that anyone was meaning to debate with you, just looking for more answers. I hope that you do not feel unappreciated, I know that if I was in your distict, I sure would appreciate your efforts as I especially appreciate your effort in explaining the other side here and enlightening myself to the complications of all math programs. Thanks. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 7 2007, 12:25 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Shouldn't parents have had the opportunity to ask these questions as the process of piloting was going on? Concerned Teacher, thank you for your input but I think that your math coordinator is ultimately responsible for answering these tough but crucial questions. I'm sure that you would agree that they do need to be answered for the program (which looks like yet another done deal) to have any credibility with parents. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Jimid Posted: Feb 7 2007, 12:30 PM Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 3,064 Member No.: 1 Joined: 5-October 05 We can't afford to make mistakes. Thats why every stone must be turned. Do not be offended concerned teacher. Thank you for your input, it is much appreciated!! . BoaterDan Posted: Feb 7 2007, 12:39 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 Concerned teacher, Well, it would be most unfortunate if you didn't continue posting. I tried to point out that your posts had already gone a long way in answering some of my concerns. But unfortunately it didn't answer all of them. I have not read anything here that should make you feel your work isn't appreciated. Quite the opposite. I sure hope we develop a culture here in this district where committees include members who can act as spokespeople and endure the grilling this kind of decision demands. With the good thrashing I recently endured during our budget process fresh on my mind, I can assure you that in the right culture there is no need for a person to feel offended, untrusted or unvalued because their decisions are questioned intensely. Some questions I had prepared for and some I hadn't even thought of and had to do more work for the next round. That's precisely why I'd like to see these committees include some "outside the box" thinkers who would come at it from a totally different point of view and ask questions others may never think of. As we learn more details of the process maybe it will be revealed that was in fact the case and there will be yet another sigh of relief for those of us asking the questions. But we shouldn't be afraid to ask. I know you didn't volunteer to be a spokesperson here, and if you have no more time we appreciate what you did give. BoaterDan Posted: Feb 7 2007, 12:53 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (kimmie @ Feb 7 2007, 10:55 AM) Wow, that is a great article and I must say that some of it really hit home with me. Recently, my daughter was having trouble with fractions/decimals. (We have connected math). When I asked her to bring me her book. (Not only did I need a refresher, I needed to know how this was being taught). Well, the book she brought to me was a wookbook. That's right!! There was absolutely no instructional value in this book at all. When I asked the principle about it, her take was, well the teacher goes over and over this in class. Well, that might be fine for those that math comes to naturally, but what about those that need the additional help at home. What about the parents who were much less educated but want to help their children today. Anyways, I left it for my husband to help her (who use to operate Nuculer Battleships and is very educated in Math) and he to was concerned that he did not know how "today's" math was being taught, as not to confuse her. I am going to show him this article as this was not the first circumstance that I thought "geez, what about the old way, how come it is being taught like this". After reading through this whole thread, I have decided to educated myself about the "New Math". Hmm... that has me thinking now. I've posted here that I like the Connected Math my two oldest are using, but considering all of this new way of thinking about it... What I like is that it encourages the kids to think about things in a way more meaningful in everyday life. Fractions, for example, are dealt with conceptually so that they mean something besides a rote algorithm. Of course, this is precisely what the proponents of these programs say is superior about them. But now that I think about, I have had the same issues with the homework workbook. My son has said "I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here." So, thinking he's just trying to get out of his work, I grab the book and read it myself... and then 5 minutes later I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the problem is asking you to do. Not only is there no instructional content as you say, but even the way some of the questions are worded is not clear as to the intended "deliverable" from the student. This has only happened a few times, so it had slipped my mind and probably still isn't earth-shattering. But it does make me stop and wonder again about the long-term aspects of these programs and brings me back to the same questions. Is the level of parental material in EM make it a better program, or is it necessary because of weaknesses of the program? Is the results of the pilot truly representative of the long-term superiority of the program, or more of an anomoly because of an extraordinary commitment of resources to the pilot? In other words, did the pilot teachers "work the program" the way we can expect the average teacher to in two years, or if the same dedication were given to teaching traditional math would it yield the same superior results? These questions arise out of ignorance on my part of the process, but they should be fairly easily answered with a some more details, right? fyi Posted: Feb 7 2007, 01:50 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 2,738 Member No.: 206 Joined: 9-December 05 QUOTE (BoaterDan) But now that I think about, I have had the same issues with the homework workbook. My son has said "I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here." So, thinking he's just trying to get out of his work, I grab the book and read it myself... and then 5 minutes later I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the problem is asking you to do. Not only is there no instructional content as you say, but even the way some of the questions are worded is not clear as to the intended "deliverable" from the student. I have had the exact same experience BD. My child has also had story problems that require long division or double-digit multiplication and they haven't covered it yet in school. When I ask if my child knows how to arrive at the answer, his reply is "we haven't done that yet." Or.... "I don't know." Then I try to explain how to arrive at the answer using methods other than standard division or multiplication. Although....lately, I've been showing him how to multiply and divide----just for fun! -------------------- http://www.electpatricemang.com/ http://www.stevefutrell.com/ http://www.eileenmcdonnell.com/ VOTE MAY 8TH!!! Recalla Posted: Feb 7 2007, 01:52 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 233 Member No.: 437 Joined: 4-August 06 From what I've read, I can appreciate that EM tries to teach other methods to solve problems, but... I still do not see how traditional math is any less effective. I understand that Michigan has new requirements, but why not adapt "traditional" math to these new requirements?? In this case, I think a retrofit of traditional math would serve us better than adopting a new program (EM)with "a new way of thinking". And it may be more cost effective too. I mean, traditional math in my mind has always been referred to as "everyday math". How can this NEW "everyday math" be better, if you can derive from it the same answer as before. I realize that there are many ways to arrive at an answer. but I am scared that my daughter will someday be at a store checkout having to figure out how much to pay. Trained in the use of traditional math, she should be able to figure this out relatively easily... I fear that using EM, she'll have to rely on counting magazines or items in the candy display to figure out the answer, rather than just relying her BASIC math skills. Criticize me if you wish, but in today's world things that are "new and improved" can be purely subjective IMO. Doritos corn chips now claims "New and Improved Flavor". Quite honestly, I didn't think they tasted bad before the improvement. -------------------- JOIN ME IN VOTING FOR PATRICE MANG, EILEEN McDONNELL AND STEVE FUTRELL ON MAY 8TH fyi Posted: Feb 7 2007, 01:56 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 2,738 Member No.: 206 Joined: 9-December 05 QUOTE (Recalla) Doritos corn chips now claims "New and Improved Flavor". Quite honestly, I didn't think they tasted bad before the improvement. Warning: Stay away from the ones with Olestra® -------------------- http://www.electpatricemang.com/ http://www.stevefutrell.com/ http://www.eileenmcdonnell.com/ VOTE MAY 8TH!!! concerned teacher Posted: Feb 7 2007, 03:27 PM 2nd Grade Group: Members Posts: 11 Member No.: 517 Joined: 6-February 07 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 7 2007, 12:39 PM) Concerned teacher, Well, it would be most unfortunate if you didn't continue posting. I tried to point out that your posts had already gone a long way in answering some of my concerns. But unfortunately it didn't answer all of them. I have not read anything here that should make you feel your work isn't appreciated. Quite the opposite. I sure hope we develop a culture here in this district where committees include members who can act as spokespeople and endure the grilling this kind of decision demands. With the good thrashing I recently endured during our budget process fresh on my mind, I can assure you that in the right culture there is no need for a person to feel offended, untrusted or unvalued because their decisions are questioned intensely. Some questions I had prepared for and some I hadn't even thought of and had to do more work for the next round. That's precisely why I'd like to see these committees include some "outside the box" thinkers who would come at it from a totally different point of view and ask questions others may never think of. As we learn more details of the process maybe it will be revealed that was in fact the case and there will be yet another sigh of relief for those of us asking the questions. But we shouldn't be afraid to ask. I know you didn't volunteer to be a spokesperson here, and if you have no more time we appreciate what you did give. I am glad that I was able to provide some insight to the program. Unfortunately, I am unable to answer all of your questions. Thank you for including me in your dialogue. BoaterDan Posted: Feb 7 2007, 04:07 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 7 2007, 01:52 PM) but I am scared that my daughter will someday be at a store checkout having to figure out how much to pay. Trained in the use of traditional math, she should be able to figure this out relatively easily... I fear that using EM, she'll have to rely on counting magazines or items in the candy display to figure out the answer, rather than just relying her BASIC math skills. I can see both sides. Thinking back now I realize my dad, certainly trained in traditional math, used (or invented for himself?) some of these "new" techniques many decades ago and the result was he was a wiz at doing math in his head. For a somewhat exaggerated example, consider the problem 15 x 17. It's pretty easy to quickly say 10x17 = 170 and half that again is 85 so the answer is 255. This is the way I calculate tips - 15% or 20% is simple and quick. Doing 15x17 in your head in the traditional method requires you have the ability to keep that mental image of the problem as you work it out, carrying the 3, keeping the places properly lined up. I'm no developmental psychologist, but I would think some people find that very difficult. And as much as I've suggested the possible "distortion" of the pilot program, it's certainly equally possible that the critics have distorted reality and exaggerated those negative aspects. In reality, does EM actually discourage the use of traditional methods, or merely attempt to embellish them with some other algorithms? |
|
LPS Reform Blog++++LPS Salary List 12/07 LPS Salary List 6/09 Contact me at: LPSReformer@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 07:44 PM Post #8 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 6 Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 New is not always good, much less Best. Old is not always Bad. Old is usually well known. New usually is not. So, How do we tell the difference. Well, we paid to have 3 systems evaluated. Take that data, and list the pros and cons of each. The add the pros and cons of the current system. How can the BOE decide among them if they only see the data for the plan the administration wants? We need Facts, not just blind Faith. Measurable, Objective, Facts. -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 7 2007, 06:16 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 I find it troublesome that all three programs they looked at are reform programs. At the very least, they should have piloted one of the traditional programs. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 7 2007, 06:19 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 7 2007, 06:16 PM) I find it troublesome that all three programs they looked at are reform programs. At the very least, they should have piloted one of the traditional programs. I wonder who made that decision? -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! cmic Posted: Feb 7 2007, 06:34 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 7 2007, 12:12 PM) My intentions by responding to the initial posting were good ones. I have provided a brief summary of the process the committee went through, a snapshot of my own personal experiences with EM, and I have done my best to answer the questions I felt I was capable of answering. My expertise is 6 year olds, only 6 year olds. I am a first grade teacher and a mother; both full time jobs. I will not exhaust myself trying to defend this program, nor will I rob my 23 fabulous first graders and my three year old daughter of my time. They are too precious. You wouldn't want your child's teacher spending planning time responding to this web site. I think all of your questions and concerns are valid. I too am concerned about some of the same things. I don't know that there will ever be a program that pleases everyone. We did our best. I can tell you that the next time I volunteer for a committee, I will think long and hard about doing so. Shame on me for wanting what's best for my students, your children. Lesson learned. I am confused by your response. You have been a wonderful asset to this forum and all of the comments toward you have been great. Did something happen that isn't on the site? I hope you will reconsider and continue to do what is best for all children. You are valued. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! Mrs.M Posted: Feb 9 2007, 12:51 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 849 Member No.: 49 Joined: 29-October 05 You all are quite determined to do your homework! Amazingly, 12 pages of responses for themost part related to an educational and truly acadmeic subject. Remarkable conversations! Everyday Math Fortunately I won't have to 'worry' about it infiltrating into my dhildren's math skills. On initial look and understanding it seems as though it's on a similar level with inventtiv speling. Remember thut. If I recal the hole idea wuz to get the stoodents to be creeatetiv. The cureck speling wood hapen layter. Besidez we had spell checkers for ar children to use similetr to spell check on the cumpuyter. Even handwriting was a challenge, some teachers expected only handwriting on homework and schoolwork in 4th grade and up. Handwriting was palmer method, then de'nelean and back to pball and stick I have not read the 12 pages of entries on this subject. It also seems the program could be a dumbing down of the current Math being taught <<<rhetorical statement BoaterDan Posted: Feb 9 2007, 07:58 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (fyi @ Feb 7 2007, 01:50 PM) I have had the exact same experience BD. My child has also had story problems that require long division or double-digit multiplication and they haven't covered it yet in school. When I ask if my child knows how to arrive at the answer, his reply is "we haven't done that yet." Or.... "I don't know." Then I try to explain how to arrive at the answer using methods other than standard division or multiplication. Although....lately, I've been showing him how to multiply and divide----just for fun! Yeah, I had kind of forgotten about that when I said I like the Connected Math program. I still like the idea of expanding the conceptual understanding, but yeah, it seems sorely lacking in simple application of the good old algorithms that have worked for centuries. I remember one particular homework assignment that had to do with dividing up some strips of paper. You had to divide one into quarters, one into fifths, sixths, eights, and so on. The implication (it wasn't entirely clear) from the brief instructions was that the student was supposed to do it by figuring out how to fold the papers to approximate those divisions... for eights they wanted the kid to understand that half then half then half again would equal eigths. All well and good until it got to like fifths. I just showed my son how to figure out 1/5 of 6 inches, mark the paper, and fold accordingly. Good old fashioned style. As I said, it seems both are important. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 9 2007, 08:17 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 7 2007, 09:49 AM) concerned teacher, Are you able to reference specific studies that give evidence of EM promoting higher achievement over more traditional programs? Some of the brightest minds in math from the most prestigious universities have warned against reform math programs such as EM. One of the major concerns is their avoidance of standard algorithms. How do you address those criticisms? Critics also contend that the "spiraling" aspect of EM leaves children confused and ignores the need for a level of mastery before moving on to another area. Can you comment on the "spiraling" feature? Critics say that the exercises and lack of focus on mastery leaves students poorly prepared for higher level math. Particularly in EM's treatment or lack thereof of fractions, percentage and decimals. Other districts have had the opportunity to look at longitudinal data within their district after the implementation of reform math and have seen the rise in high school students requiring " "math remediation" What is your opinion? Parents in EM district's across the country all have the same complaint: their children lack the necessary computational skills and they must supplement with Kumon or other tutoring services. Some districts even encourage parent's to utilize these services as a component to EM. The calculator is inherent to EM and often listed as the culprit to the poor computational skills evidenced in kids going through the program. Is LPS modifying that part of the program? If so, why adopt a program that requires so many modifications? EM has been adopted and since abandoned by districts across the country. In CA (a state that used reform math exclusively), a district that wants to utilize it must apply for a waiver. Texas also highly utilized reform math programs, now less than 5% of that state's districts use such programs. Assuming that teacher quality is, on average, equal; how do you account for the program's lack luster track record? You mentioned a presentation of the EM program. Was that made by a company salesperson or "technical" person or an outside math expert? The WWC cite's 4 studies that point to the "potential" that EM is effective. After 20 years of use, shouldn't there be more? Many contend that EM is extemely difficult to teach and site the lack of teacher "buy-in" for it's failure in many districts where EM has been dropped. It doesn't take long to find numerous testimonials by frustrated teachers declaring that EM requires too much supplementation and that they often shelf the program and use their own materials. How will LPS avoid this? The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has recently called for a move away from reform math programs in favor of traditional programs. Why is LPS moving in a direction that many are moving away from and respected organizations are questioning? Were traditional programs given any consideration? Houghton Mifflin, Saxon and so on? Thank you for your time and consideration of these issues. TAB...What are your thoughts on EM? Are any of the trustee's going to question it? If you are comfortable with the committee's choice maybe you could answer the above questions or have them answered openly by Mrs. Alles. I think that parents would also like to have the conditions and results of all three pilot programs made available. Glad to see you back on the forum. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com jodygirlh Posted: Feb 11 2007, 09:32 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 371 Member No.: 220 Joined: 13-December 05 QUOTE (cmic @ Feb 7 2007, 06:34 PM) QUOTE (concerned teacher @ Feb 7 2007, 12:12 PM) My intentions by responding to the initial posting were good ones. I have provided a brief summary of the process the committee went through, a snapshot of my own personal experiences with EM, and I have done my best to answer the questions I felt I was capable of answering. My expertise is 6 year olds, only 6 year olds. I am a first grade teacher and a mother; both full time jobs. I will not exhaust myself trying to defend this program, nor will I rob my 23 fabulous first graders and my three year old daughter of my time. They are too precious. You wouldn't want your child's teacher spending planning time responding to this web site. I think all of your questions and concerns are valid. I too am concerned about some of the same things. I don't know that there will ever be a program that pleases everyone. We did our best. I can tell you that the next time I volunteer for a committee, I will think long and hard about doing so. Shame on me for wanting what's best for my students, your children. Lesson learned. I am confused by your response. You have been a wonderful asset to this forum and all of the comments toward you have been great. Did something happen that isn't on the site? I hope you will reconsider and continue to do what is best for all children. You are valued. I too am confused by your response concerned teach. It is often said by educators, that parents are uninvolved, disinterested, etc. in their childrens education. Yet on this site (and seemingly with this district), whenever parents try to engage in meaningful, critical dialogue-attempting to both understand the current research and professional reasoning for certain decisions, they are criticized for that concern. Which is it? Our concerns are valid and reasonable, or they are not? Why the martyr attitude at the end of your post about 'being on another committee'. This is one thing I do not understand about teachers in general. Do you want involved parents, or would you prefer we just blindly assume that you all know what is best for our children in all circumstances? (Not trying to be sarcastic, there just doesn't seem to ever be a happy medium.) -------------------- Vote Mang, McDonnell, & Futrell - May 8!!!! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 13 2007, 12:16 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 9 2007, 08:17 AM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 7 2007, 09:49 AM) concerned teacher, Are you able to reference specific studies that give evidence of EM promoting higher achievement over more traditional programs? Some of the brightest minds in math from the most prestigious universities have warned against reform math programs such as EM. One of the major concerns is their avoidance of standard algorithms. How do you address those criticisms? Critics also contend that the "spiraling" aspect of EM leaves children confused and ignores the need for a level of mastery before moving on to another area. Can you comment on the "spiraling" feature? Critics say that the exercises and lack of focus on mastery leaves students poorly prepared for higher level math. Particularly in EM's treatment or lack thereof of fractions, percentage and decimals. Other districts have had the opportunity to look at longitudinal data within their district after the implementation of reform math and have seen the rise in high school students requiring " "math remediation" What is your opinion? Parents in EM district's across the country all have the same complaint: their children lack the necessary computational skills and they must supplement with Kumon or other tutoring services. Some districts even encourage parent's to utilize these services as a component to EM. The calculator is inherent to EM and often listed as the culprit to the poor computational skills evidenced in kids going through the program. Is LPS modifying that part of the program? If so, why adopt a program that requires so many modifications? EM has been adopted and since abandoned by districts across the country. In CA (a state that used reform math exclusively), a district that wants to utilize it must apply for a waiver. Texas also highly utilized reform math programs, now less than 5% of that state's districts use such programs. Assuming that teacher quality is, on average, equal; how do you account for the program's lack luster track record? You mentioned a presentation of the EM program. Was that made by a company salesperson or "technical" person or an outside math expert? The WWC cite's 4 studies that point to the "potential" that EM is effective. After 20 years of use, shouldn't there be more? Many contend that EM is extemely difficult to teach and site the lack of teacher "buy-in" for it's failure in many districts where EM has been dropped. It doesn't take long to find numerous testimonials by frustrated teachers declaring that EM requires too much supplementation and that they often shelf the program and use their own materials. How will LPS avoid this? The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has recently called for a move away from reform math programs in favor of traditional programs. Why is LPS moving in a direction that many are moving away from and respected organizations are questioning? Were traditional programs given any consideration? Houghton Mifflin, Saxon and so on? Thank you for your time and consideration of these issues. TAB...What are your thoughts on EM? Are any of the trustee's going to question it? If you are comfortable with the committee's choice maybe you could answer the above questions or have them answered openly by Mrs. Alles. I think that parents would also like to have the conditions and results of all three pilot programs made available. Glad to see you back on the forum. My old fashioned math doesn't seem to be working...... After seeing the cost of >$400,000 for the text books, teacher support materials, student consumables, training, etc. I had to do a bit of math on my own. If there are 4,000 book sets for lower El students (just guessing on that actual number) that would be in this program..... that is about $100 per book set..... and if the district uses this math program for 10 years the cost per year to use the books seems actually inexpensive. NOW lets talk about the student consumables that Ms. Alles breezed over last night. The cost of those was stated last week at $75,000 - $80,000 PER YEAR to replenish for student use. If the district does that for 10 years, that is an additional $750,000 to $800,000?!?!? PLEASE explain why this part of the spending, which is actually double the amount of the text books, wasn't discussed?!?!? Where will this money come from? Will the cost of consumables go up over the years? ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 15 2007, 09:26 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 It looks like some aren't so happy with EM in PCCS... Dump Everyday Mathematics Congratulations to the students, parents and teachers for another exemplary performance on the MEAP. Plymouth-Canton Schools continues to show how dedicated students, committed teachers and involved parents can come together and produce fantastic results. Just think how much better the math results would be if the district would dump Everyday Mathematics and start using a program that didn't require parents to spend their summers teaching math themselves, or drive their children to Kumon and Sylvan twice a week. Everyday Mathematics wastes valuable class time that should be spent teaching. Our children are being shortchanged with this program. The seven-year experiment has shown no gains relative to the state average, while we continue to fall farther and farther behind countries like Singapore, Japan and China. The district is right now contemplating continuing the experiment for at least another five years by purchasing a new edition of Everyday Mathematics. It's time to move on and select a curriculum that will give our children the chance to compete in a global job market. Continuing to use this curriculum just because it matches well with the Michigan standards is not the right thing to do. Our children deserve better. Again, congratulations to all our students, parents and teachers for achieve fantastic MEAP results in spite of Everyday Mathematics. Larry Martin February 1, 2007 -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 15 2007, 10:20 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 How about a different teachers opinion... "I teach Everyday Math in first grade and have had mixed results. High level students "get it" and probably would understand concepts in many different formats. However, students of average or low ability have a great deal of difficulty. The spiral format of introducing concepts prevents mastery of the concepts. While students are being introduced to new ideas and will see the material again in another lesson, because of the lack of repetition and learning to mastery, they are not retaining the information. Each time the concept is introduced, they are beginning at square 1 and need to be re-taught. Consequently, they are frustrated. The program does have many games and manipulative activities which the students enjoy, but I have not seen the progress that I expect. On the other hand, I have also taught Saxon Math and found it to be effective for all levels of student ability. The program also has games and manipulatives, but does focus on mastery of concepts. I find this to be much more effective when introducing new concepts as the students then have a secure foundation on which to build." -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Sinking in LI Posted: Feb 15 2007, 10:25 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 61 Member No.: 42 Joined: 28-October 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 15 2007, 10:20 AM) How about a different teachers opinion... "I teach Everyday Math in first grade and have had mixed results. High level students "get it" and probably would understand concepts in many different formats. However, students of average or low ability have a great deal of difficulty. The spiral format of introducing concepts prevents mastery of the concepts. While students are being introduced to new ideas and will see the material again in another lesson, because of the lack of repetition and learning to mastery, they are not retaining the information. Each time the concept is introduced, they are beginning at square 1 and need to be re-taught. Consequently, they are frustrated. The program does have many games and manipulative activities which the students enjoy, but I have not seen the progress that I expect. On the other hand, I have also taught Saxon Math and found it to be effective for all levels of student ability. The program also has games and manipulatives, but does focus on mastery of concepts. I find this to be much more effective when introducing new concepts as the students then have a secure foundation on which to build." Maybe Saxon was one of the "other" pilot programs that LPS tried? Ms. Alles had stated that there were 3 programs in the pilot study...... just not sure what programs, and if they were as extensive as the pilot they did with EM.....anyone know? ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 15 2007, 10:36 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (Sinking in LI @ Feb 15 2007, 10:25 AM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 15 2007, 10:20 AM) How about a different teachers opinion... "I teach Everyday Math in first grade and have had mixed results. High level students "get it" and probably would understand concepts in many different formats. However, students of average or low ability have a great deal of difficulty. The spiral format of introducing concepts prevents mastery of the concepts. While students are being introduced to new ideas and will see the material again in another lesson, because of the lack of repetition and learning to mastery, they are not retaining the information. Each time the concept is introduced, they are beginning at square 1 and need to be re-taught. Consequently, they are frustrated. The program does have many games and manipulative activities which the students enjoy, but I have not seen the progress that I expect. On the other hand, I have also taught Saxon Math and found it to be effective for all levels of student ability. The program also has games and manipulatives, but does focus on mastery of concepts. I find this to be much more effective when introducing new concepts as the students then have a secure foundation on which to build." Maybe Saxon was one of the "other" pilot programs that LPS tried? Ms. Alles had stated that there were 3 programs in the pilot study...... just not sure what programs, and if they were as extensive as the pilot they did with EM.....anyone know? All 3 were reform math programs. They didn't pilot any traditional programs. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 15 2007, 03:57 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 This is a letter read by a parent to the Ann Arbor Public Schools BOE... Good evening, my name is Deborah Jahn and I am the secretary for the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education this year. My son, Mark, is a seventh grader at Tappan Middle School. He is learning disabled, which is the most common disability classification, shared by over 50% of special education students in the district. Mark is dyslexic and has had difficulty learning to read and requires significant amounts of repetition in order to remember the things he has learned. It is with the knowledge of my son and the many other children with disabilities similar to his that I would like to make some comments on behalf of the Parent Advisory Committee.The PAC would like to encourage the district, when choosing district-wide programs for math and reading instruction, to remember that children learn differently, and to think through how to provide instruction for those who are “left behind” by the chosen curriculum. For example, the Everyday Math and Connected Math texts used by our district are heavily language based and more conceptual than computational. While this approach works fine for the majority of kids, it does not work for a substantial minority of children who have difficulties reading or who need lots of repetition. Some parents, who are able to afford it, supplement their children’s math with outside programs such as Kumon math, while others watch their children get frustrated and fall further behind. Many teachers recognize the limitations of Everyday Math, and improvise their own worksheets or studyclubs to help. But it would make more sense if the district could provide schools with a supplemental approach for those students who do not learn well with the Everyday Math program -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 18 2007, 12:43 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Take a look at the following article from the Washington Post. It's titled Danger: Smart Parents With Data. While it focuses on a parent's research and struggle against EM, it is also an interesting commentary on the way in which the relationship between school board and parents is rapidly changing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug24.html -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com loyaltolivonia Posted: Feb 18 2007, 12:53 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 15 2007, 10:20 AM) How about a different teachers opinion... "I teach Everyday Math in first grade and have had mixed results. High level students "get it" and probably would understand concepts in many different formats. However, students of average or low ability have a great deal of difficulty. The spiral format of introducing concepts prevents mastery of the concepts. While students are being introduced to new ideas and will see the material again in another lesson, because of the lack of repetition and learning to mastery, they are not retaining the information. Each time the concept is introduced, they are beginning at square 1 and need to be re-taught. Consequently, they are frustrated. The program does have many games and manipulative activities which the students enjoy, but I have not seen the progress that I expect. On the other hand, I have also taught Saxon Math and found it to be effective for all levels of student ability. The program also has games and manipulatives, but does focus on mastery of concepts. I find this to be much more effective when introducing new concepts as the students then have a secure foundation on which to build." Funny, ILikeLI, I have been surfing this thread still trying to decide whether EM is 'right' or not. I read the article in the O & E and pulled a quote from it: "Lesia McQuade's son Gregory, 7, now insists on paying the bill at Coney Island. "He's doing little equations like three plus blank equals nine," McQuade told the board Monday. "It's almost a precursor to algebra." Everyday Math incorporates basic skills, problem solving and games. It also emphasizes a strong parent connection." While this sounds great for Mrs. McQuade's son, he sounds more like the exception than the rule with EM. It sounds like a program that will work well with children that 'get it' (math). I really worry about those kids that will be left behind because they are not learning the basic math skills from the beginning. It's great that this child is doing pre-algebra, but what about multiplication, division, fractions, etc......? ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 18 2007, 01:41 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 In my opinion, the idea of EM incorporating basic skills is a bit misleading. Kids will learn computational skills according to the program's algorithms. Take a look here for examples... http://mb.msdpt.k12.in.us/Math/Algorithms.html These are the techniques inherent to EM. If the district says that they aren't using these and are supplementing or modifying in some manner, then I would question the purchase of this program. Why buy it if you have to modify it's basic foundation? If that is the case, children would have been better served with a program that incorporates standard algorithms. The "spiraling" aspect of this program is also troubling to many. EM moves quickly through a range of topics that are revisited many times but in different contexts. Mastery of a particular concept before moving forward is therefore not stressed or required as it is in more traditional programs. The student or parent may be told "we'll spiral back around to it" when a student has difficulty with a concept. Researchers worry that children who don't "get it" the first time around are only more confused and frustrated the next time around the spiral. Many have also stated that kids who don't have a parent who is very well versed in math willing to help will be at a disadvantage. In order to help their children, parents will have to educate themselves in the methods of EM. Otherwise you'll have parents helping their kids with the methods they learned instead of the EM techniques used at school. That will certainly only lead to more confusion for the children. As far as beign prepared for Algebra, I personally can't see the connection between EM algorithms and Algebra. Standard algorithms are preparatory for algebra, since there are strong analogies between arithmetic of ordinary numbers and arithmetic of polynomials. How do you learn to divide polynomials without understanding the standard algorithm for long division? Everyday Math on Long Division The authors of Everyday Math do not believe it is worth the time and effort to develop highly efficient paper-and-pencil algorithms for all possible whole number, fractions and decimal division problems.…It is simply counterproductive to invest hours of precious class time on such algorithms. The math payoff is not worth the cost, particularly because quotients can be found quickly and accurately with a calculator. -- from the Everyday Math Teacher's Guide -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 18 2007, 02:23 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Hopefully the district will provide a handbook on EM, like this district did. take a look, how comfortable would you be with helping your kids within these methods? http://instruction.aaps.k12.mi.us/EM_paren...algorithms.html -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Mrs.M Posted: Feb 18 2007, 03:28 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 849 Member No.: 49 Joined: 29-October 05 I understand each class will have a couple 'parent handbooks' for the new math. I'm sure parents will be able to purchase their own handbook. loyaltolivonia Posted: Feb 18 2007, 05:05 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 18 2007, 02:23 PM) Hopefully the district will provide a handbook on EM, like this district did. take a look, how comfortable would you be with helping your kids within this methods? http://instruction.aaps.k12.mi.us/EM_paren...algorithms.html WOW! That was enlightening I am all for learning new things, but this type of learning seems pretty extreme in some areas. I can see were it would be very confusing for kid's that sometimes struggle with math. Thanks. ForMySons Posted: Feb 18 2007, 05:35 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 205 Member No.: 205 Joined: 8-December 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 18 2007, 02:23 PM) Hopefully the district will provide a handbook on EM, like this district did. take a look, how comfortable would you be with helping your kids within this methods? http://instruction.aaps.k12.mi.us/EM_paren...algorithms.html Scary! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 18 2007, 06:29 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 EM is a very troubling program. It's no wonder that the district didn't make copies of the textbooks available for parent preview, as is commonly done, during the pilot phase. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com loyaltolivonia Posted: Feb 18 2007, 08:12 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 I have another question; Is the teacher at Coolidge (Mrs. Hathaway) the only teacher piloting this program? If not, does anyone know who the other teachers are and what grade they are teaching? I'd like to hear from other grade level teachers about this, too. Their thought's on EM? LPS Customer Posted: Feb 18 2007, 08:14 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 134 Member No.: 394 Joined: 28-April 06 QUOTE (Sinking in LI @ Feb 15 2007, 11:25 AM) Ms. Alles had stated that there were 3 programs in the pilot study...... just not sure what programs, and if they were as extensive as the pilot they did with EM.....anyone know? ya mean just like the "three" different LI configurations? May, please come sooner! -------------------- CHANGE IS GOOD! ktmom Posted: Feb 18 2007, 08:22 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 520 Member No.: 72 Joined: 2-November 05 QUOTE (loyaltolivonia @ Feb 18 2007, 08:12 PM) I have another question; Is the teacher at Coolidge (Mrs. Hathaway) the only teacher piloting this program? If not, does anyone know who the other teachers are and what grade they are teaching? I'd like to hear from other grade level teachers about this, too. Their thought's on EM? My sons 2nd grade teacher at Roosevelt is also Piloting the Em program. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 18 2007, 09:44 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 So what is your impression? -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Mrs.M Posted: Feb 18 2007, 09:46 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 849 Member No.: 49 Joined: 29-October 05 Maybe it was three classroom, grades, piloting it? 2tots Posted: Feb 19 2007, 10:58 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 301 Member No.: 359 Joined: 22-March 06 QUOTE (ForMySons @ Feb 18 2007, 05:35 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 18 2007, 02:23 PM) Hopefully the district will provide a handbook on EM, like this district did. take a look, how comfortable would you be with helping your kids within this methods? http://instruction.aaps.k12.mi.us/EM_paren...algorithms.html Scary! Oh my. This really is scary. I'd better brush up on my math skills and get some teaching aids because it looks like I will be teaching my kids math in the years to come. Yet again I look at another decision by this BOE and administration and the only thing that comes to mind is WHY? ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 19 2007, 02:33 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 It is scary. I don't know if parents understand that this program is based on alternative alogorithms and even encourages kids to invent or create their own. How is that useful or valuable? It has taken the sharpest minds in math thousands of years to create our current system of traditional math, we really believe that 3rd graders can "invent" something useful? I'm wondering if the long term effects of this program on the acquisition of skills necessary for algebra have really been thought through by the district. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com JEM Posted: Feb 19 2007, 03:24 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 47 Member No.: 249 Joined: 28-December 05 QUOTE (loyaltolivonia @ Feb 18 2007, 09:12 PM) I have another question; Is the teacher at Coolidge (Mrs. Hathaway) the only teacher piloting this program? If not, does anyone know who the other teachers are and what grade they are teaching? I'd like to hear from other grade level teachers about this, too. Their thought's on EM? No. Every school had a teacher piloting the program. With the change in school configuration this year, some had two teachers that continued to pilot the last program as there were three programs total. I know that the focus was on first and fourth grade as fifth and sixth were not part of these as they use Connected Math. Hathaway was not the only one. I don't think the district would adopt a program based on one teacher's input. There was a committe that realigned LPS math curriculum to the state standards and then from there a group of teachers did the pilots. JEM Posted: Feb 19 2007, 03:26 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 47 Member No.: 249 Joined: 28-December 05 Also, the teachers met to discuss the progress of each pilot and then a decision was made by the whole group on which program to adopt. This entire process took over two years. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 19 2007, 03:36 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (JEM @ Feb 19 2007, 03:26 PM) Also, the teachers met to discuss the progress of each pilot and then a decision was made by the whole group on which program to adopt. This entire process took over two years. Why weren't all three textbooks made available for parent preview during the pilot phase? Parents should have had the opportunity to see first hand what the programs entailed and been given the chance to ask questions concerning the validity of the techniques in each one. Many, if not all of the tough questions about this program have gone unanswered. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com mouse2 Posted: Feb 19 2007, 03:44 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (JEM @ Feb 19 2007, 03:26 PM) Also, the teachers met to discuss the progress of each pilot and then a decision was made by the whole group on which program to adopt. This entire process took over two years. My son was doing this so called new math last year in fourth grade. His teacher was on the panel. I have the books and papers from last year. I won't say the teacher name but the school was Kennedy. Trust me this new math is not what they are saying it is ! what really get me is all the lies LPS is able to get away with. loyaltolivonia Posted: Feb 19 2007, 04:26 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 19 2007, 02:33 PM) It is scary. I don't know if parents understand that this program is based on alternative alogorithms and even encourages kids to invent or create their own. How is that useful or valuable? It has taken the sharpest minds in math thousands of years to create our current system of traditional math, we really believe that 3rd graders can "invent" something useful? I'm wondering if the long term effects of this program on the acquisition of skills necessary for algebra have really been thought through by the district. The 'alternative alogorithms' is the part that I don't understand....literally!!!! With the link you provided us to look at the alternatives, some of them really, really confused me I am 45 years old and like to think that I am still capable of learning new things, but whoa...... I think my verdict on this is I would prefer my children to learn the traditional math. I would also like them to 'think outside the box', but I would like them to have a strong foundation before they start messing around with 'inventing' their own way to do things. Thanks for all the info that was provided here. It definitely helped me to learn much about this EM. Delynn Posted: Feb 19 2007, 04:46 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 110 Member No.: 438 Joined: 5-August 06 QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 19 2007, 03:44 PM) QUOTE (JEM @ Feb 19 2007, 03:26 PM) Also, the teachers met to discuss the progress of each pilot and then a decision was made by the whole group on which program to adopt. This entire process took over two years. My son was doing this so called new math last year in fourth grade. His teacher was on the panel. I have the books and papers from last year. I won't say the teacher name but the school was Kennedy. Trust me this new math is not what they are saying it is ! what really get me is all the lies LPS is able to get away with. My son also attends Kennedy, in the third grade....if you don't mind my asking what was the teacher's perspective on this program? mouse2 Posted: Feb 19 2007, 05:15 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (Delynn @ Feb 19 2007, 04:46 PM) QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 19 2007, 03:44 PM) QUOTE (JEM @ Feb 19 2007, 03:26 PM) Also, the teachers met to discuss the progress of each pilot and then a decision was made by the whole group on which program to adopt. This entire process took over two years. My son was doing this so called new math last year in fourth grade. His teacher was on the panel. I have the books and papers from last year. I won't say the teacher name but the school was Kennedy. Trust me this new math is not what they are saying it is ! what really get me is all the lies LPS is able to get away with. My son also attends Kennedy, in the third grade....if you don't mind my asking what was the teacher's perspective on this program? It seems she thought it was great. The parents in our class did not like it at all. I can also say my son did not not like it at all either, He found the old way mom and dad taught him was better. loyaltolivonia Posted: Feb 19 2007, 05:58 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 And just so I understand this completely, they are implementing this k-4 starting in September of this year? They are not doing this 5/6 because 5/6 is already doing 'Connected Math'? Does EM help with the kids understanding Connected Math later? In other words, are they connected ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 19 2007, 08:11 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (loyaltolivonia @ Feb 19 2007, 05:58 PM) And just so I understand this completely, they are implementing this k-4 starting in September of this year? They are not doing this 5/6 because 5/6 is already doing 'Connected Math'? Does EM help with the kids understanding Connected Math later? In other words, are they connected The EM program is a k-6 curriculum. I am not sure why it isn't being carried through to the 5/6 schools. The programs are very different but CMP has also had it's share of criticism for what is chooses to cover and what it glosses over. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 20 2007, 11:35 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 October 2, 2005: http://www.nychold.com/talk-greenleaf-051002.pdf -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 20 2007, 11:42 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles...3/12&ID=Ar00600 Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Mar 12, 2003; Section:Editorial&Opinon; Page:6 The ‘Fuzzy Math’ Bath By MATTHEW CLAVEL Mr. Clavel is now writing a book on his teaching experiences. This piece is adapted from City Journal’s Web site, www.city-journal.org. ‘Come on, I need someone to take a chance.Who can start the puzzle?" It wasn’t working. We’d gone through six straight wrong answers, and now the children were tired of feeling lost. It was only October, and already my fourth-grade public school class in the South Bronx was demoralized. Day after day of going over strange,seemingly disconnected math lessons had squelched my students’ interest in the subject. Then, quietly, 10-year-old David spoke up. "Mr.Clavel,no one understands this stuff."He looked up at me with a defeated expression; other children nodded pleadingly. "Look," I began, sighing deeply."Math isn’t half as hard as you all probably think right now." A few children seemed relieved — at least I wasn’t just denying their problem. "There are different ways to teach it," I continued. "I don’t want to do this either…so we’re not going to — at least most of the time." I was thinking out loud now, and many of the children looked startled. "We can use these math books when we need them, but I’m going to figure out different ways to teach you the most important things." If school officials knew how far my lessons would deviate from the school-district-mandated math program in the months ahead, they probably would have fired me on the spot. But boy, did my children need a fresh approach. Since kindergarten, most of them had been taught math using this same dreadful curriculum, called Everyday Mathematics — a slightly older version of a program that the New York City schools chancellor, Joel Klein, has now unwisely chosen for most of Gotham’s public elementary schools; the district had phased in Everyday Mathematics grade by grade, and it had just reached fourth grade during my first year of teaching. The curriculum’s failure was undeniable: Not one of my students knew his or her times tables, and few had mastered even the most basic operations; knowledge of multiplication and division was abysmal. The curriculum derives from a pedagogical philosophy that goes by several names — "Constructivist Math," "New-New Math," and, to its detractors, "Fuzzy Math." I’ll stick with Fuzzy Math, since the critics are right. Nothing about Fuzzy Math makes much sense from a teaching standpoint. One weakness is its emphasis on "cooperative learning." Fuzzy Math belongs to a family of recent pedagogical innovations which imagine that children possess innate wisdom and can teach each other while a self-effacing "facilitator" (the adult formerly known as a teacher) flutters over them.If the architects of Everyday Mathematics had their way, I would have placed my children in various groups, for the most part unsupervised,so that they could work on one elaborate activity after another, learning on their own. I’d derive bitter pleasure in watching a Fuzzy Math "professionaldevelopment" expert try using this approach in an inner-city classroom, filled with children whose often unstructured home lives make self-restraint a big problem. I avoided this loss of control, because right from the outset, even before I chucked the whole program, I felt that pursing cooperative learning with my students was asking for trouble, and so I mostly didn’t do it. I was going to teach; my students were going to learn. Everyday Mathematics is bad enough from the standpoint of maintaining a disciplined class. Making it even worse is its Fuzzy Mathinspired emphasis on "critical thinking skills" over old-fashioned drilling and the mastery of facts.What matters is showing that you understand a concept, not whether you can perform a calculation and come up with a right answer. Defenders of critical thinking say we need to rescue our schools from a repressive "drilland-kill" pedagogy that makes children automatons, spitting back the facts and rules that teachers have drummed into their heads and never learning to think on their own.The truth, of course, is that no one claims that knowing how to think independently isn’t important. But thinking can’t take flight unless you do know some basic facts — and nowhere is this more the case than in math. If you really want your students to engage in "higher-order thinking" in math, get them to master basic operations like their times tables first. Unfortunately, a student in a Fuzzy Math program — including Everyday Mathematics — is unlikely to master much of anything.The hours of logically linked lessons that old-style math classes spent on practicing operations so that they became second nature to students just are not there. Equally mystifying, Everyday Mathematics, like Fuzzy Math programs generally, abruptly introduces concepts like basic algebra that students aren’t officially taught until years later. Imagine you’re a fourth grader and see in your workbook, right next to a relatively easy addition word problem, a forbidding algebra exercise you couldn’t begin to answer because, well, you haven’t learned algebra yet. Bewilderment is inevitable. Teachers frustrated by this incoherent approach got little sympathy from school administrators. District officials told us that we should just keep going — even if not a single child in our rooms understood what we were talking about. Yet the district officials themselves seemed perplexed by Everyday Mathematics. One assessment, created by the district to judge the progress the fourth-graders were making in the program, came with an answer sheet with two incorrect answers. As for students, many just tuned out. The lesson plans jumped around so much that an especially confusing and oddly presented topic was only going to be on the agenda for a few days. Why bother trying to understand it? The repudiation of skills in Fuzzy Math also encourages a detrimental over-reliance on calculators. The use of these gadgets to replace mental computation raises concerns about learning skills for all school children. According to a 2000 Brookings Institute study, fourthgraders who used calculators every day were likely to do worse in math than other students. But it’s minority children like those in my class who are turning to calculators the most. The Brookings study reports that half of all black school children used calculators every day, compared with 27% of white school children. There’s mounting evidence that Fuzzy Math doesn’t work. During the 1990s, Fuzzy Math represented the new wave, and President Clinton’s Department of Education was pushing it, so district after district across the country tried it out. But its popularity among educational elites could not hide the dismal test scores. California, ever on the cutting edge of educational reforms, enthusiastically embraced Fuzzy Math in the early 1990s only to watch state math scores plummet. In 1996, California registered one of the worst scores of all 50 states on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. By the end of 1997, the State Board of Education realized its mistake and produced sensible standards that encouraged more traditional math instruction. Regrettably, in the heavily bureaucratized public schools, bad results do not necessarily lead to re-evaluation. Fuzzy Math, cooperative learning, and a myriad of other educational fads are the pet projects of very influential, tenured university "experts" who fiercely protect their theoretical turf, in teachers colleges and among school administrators. If test scores seem to rise thanks to Fuzzy Math, great: Campus enthusiasts will tout the results. If they stagnate or fall, the theoreticians will find ways to poke holes in any critical study that blames the theory. The frustration of parents and community leaders has gathered momentum. Parents overwhelmingly want to set aside ideological preoccupations in math and get back to fundamentals. A big push is on to allow parents to opt their children out of Everyday Mathematics and other Fuzzy Math programs. "Cooperative" learning that leads to classroom chaos, schizoid lessons that fail to impart mastery, lousy results, parental outrage — shouldn’t every teacher have done as I did and thrown Elementary Mathematics into the garbage? But it isn’t easy for teachers to disobey mandated curricula — not if they want to keep their jobs. Most teachers are trying to make a career in education, so they teach a newly mandated curriculum even if they know it to be absurd. Nor will school bureaucrats usually be quick to get rid of a deeply flawed curriculum. After all, if the "experts" say Fuzzy Math is the way to go, then the problem must be in how teachers are implementing the theory, not in the theory itself. By deciding against local control early on and moving to centralize the school system, Mr. Klein and Mayor Bloomberg took a tremendous risk. The advantage of charter schools and decentralized public schools is that they have the chance to innovate and distinguish themselves. Any leader of a school system who decides to put blanket "reforms" in place could achieve great success; he also risks unknowingly stamping out improvements made at the local level. Unfortunately, it appears that Messrs. Klein and Bloomberg, by embracing an all-but-universal Fuzzy Math curriculum, are setting themselves up to lose their big gamble. The inner-city students subjected to this curriculum will be the real losers. What will happen to children who never adequately learn basic operations like long division — or even their times tables? How will they succeed in the knowledge-based 21 st-century economy? Most of them won’t have parents who can afford math tutors to help them catch up.My guess is that most of these children will never get the education they need, and we’ll just brush another catastrophe under the rug. IGOR KOPELNITSKY |
|
LPS Reform Blog++++LPS Salary List 12/07 LPS Salary List 6/09 Contact me at: LPSReformer@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 07:47 PM Post #9 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 7 BoaterDan Posted: Feb 20 2007, 11:49 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 I didn't have time to make this comment at last week's board meeting... I had to chuckle at Lessard's comment about how thankful we should be our kids don't have to learn those old, archaic times tables (my paraphrase). At the beginning of the school year the math teachers at Webster were distraught about the general lack of preparedness in the students (yes, at Webster). What in particular were the students lacking? Memorization of basic "math facts" - which, translated, means times tables. Lessard trying to sound all "hip" and instead demonstrating how clueless he is. I probably would have made this comment over the ones I did if Mrs. Durand (Webster principal) had remained until the end of the meeting. I would have loved to hear her comment on this after Lessard's comment. Would have been as fun as hearing Alles demonstrate the good representative's comments about LI were utterly asinine. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 21 2007, 09:59 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 I think that the BOE seemed to feel comfortable with the incorrect idea that all of the criticism of EM and reform math was in the past. I want parents to understand that criticism and unrest with these programs continues... Dolan: Math for all: Repairing an incoherent curriculum By Lucia Dolan/ Guest Commentary The Newton Tab at Town Online.Com Wednesday, February 8, 2006 One-third of students in Newton's public high schools have private math tutors or classes, according to a recently published survey conducted by the Newton Public Schools. Why do so many parents feel the need to supplement? I started paying for private math classes in the third grade, after my daughter was taught single digit addition, 4 + 6 + 8, for the third year in a row. This is called spiraling, learning the same math topics year after year. It made as much sense to me as teaching literacy by reading "The Cat in the Hat" three years in a row. Turns out I'm not the only worried parent. Less than half (39 percent) of elementary parents agree that our school's " math content is demanding enough to meet the learning needs of their children " ("Newton Public Schools Mathematics Curriculum Survey," June 2004, page 23). Most parents do not believe their children are being challenged. For example, 84 percent of our high school teachers, 33 percent of our high school students and 8 percent of their parents believe students are given more challenging work once they have master the material. Few (38 percent) elementary school teachers like our math curriculum. A strong curriculum is especially important when many of our teachers do not believe they are strong math teachers. Only 35 percent of our elementary, 63 percent of our middle and 47 percent of our high school math teachers consider themselves "master" math teachers. "METCO parents expressed strong concern that the expectations for their children are too low. They stated they do not understand exactly what their children are learning, and fear low expectations result in 'pseudo diplomas' that give students a false sense of confidence and ability to proceed to college or the work world." (p. 5, Newton Mathematics Curriculum Review Focus Group Report (FG), July 2005) Challenge programs might seem like tax cuts for the rich, giving to those who already got (smarts, in this case). But the children who benefit most are those whose parents cannot pay for extra tutoring or tutor them at home. More than half of our low-income students fail the math MCAS in elementary, middle and high school. There is no improvement for time spent in our school system. In 2004, 59 percent of our low-income 10th-graders fail to meet proficiency, compared to 7 percent of our regular students. Proficiency is the minimum all students are expected to meet. My dad was a low-income kid. Neither of his parents made it to the eighth grade. Yet after going through the public school system, he obtained a Ph.D in chemical engineering. He paved the way for his brother to get the family's second college degree, another Ph.D, and bought his parents their first home. He took remedial courses (as did I), but he was able to advance out of them. The ability to advance seems to be missing from our current curriculum. Children who start out behind, are left behind. "Finally, with so many different curricula within the system, and with so many differing strengths and weaknesses, there seems to be little chance for consistent or coherent experiences for students in mathematics." (page 3, Overview Report: Mathematics Curriculum Survey, July 2004) Change needs to come from the top of our school administration. Great individual teachers and principals cannot fix the math program on their own. These survey results show we need a major re-thinking of how we teach math. Tinkering at the edges, creating a math resource center for parents (which would encourage further supplementation), or handing out more awards without increasing the level of challenge, will not repair our curriculum. Our children need strong math skills to succeed in the global marketplace. We need to address these difficult issues: "parents were concerned with the disjointed curriculum, gaps and inconsistencies in sequencing, levels that don't meet the needs or abilities of students, overcrowded classrooms, teachers "dumbing down" the curriculum, lack of repetition for reinforcement, and the need to hire outside help." (p. 10, FG, July 2005) The survey reports were created by Learning Innovations, an educational consulting group, for the Newton Public Schools as part of our curriculum review process. To view the full reports, go to www.newtonparents.org. If you are concerned about the quality of our math program, contact our School Committee at schoolcommittee@newtonpublicschools.com. Lucia Dolan is a parent of a middle school student who lives in Newton Centre. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 21 2007, 10:04 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Jun 1, 2005; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:9 Math Disaster A New York teacher on why business is booming for math tutors on the Upper East Side By BRUCE WINOKUR Mr. Winokur is a mathematics instructor at Stuyvesant High School. Teaching mathematics has been my profession in New York City public schools since 1969, first at I.S. 201 in District 5, then at J.H.S. 17 in District 2, and since 1983, at Stuyvesant High School. I’m also the father of a 10-year-old daughter who attends District 2 schools and a member of an organization, Nychold (nychold.com), dedicated to bringing sanity to math education. I’m a firm believer in public education, the great equalizer. Sadly, over the past 10 years, I’ve witnessed how badly things can go wrong. I am referring specifically to the constructivist math curricula that abound in our city public schools in general and more specifically in District 2, where I live, teach, and raise my daughter. Constructivist curricula, such as TERC and CMP, forsake algorithms, postulates, and theorems (the foundation of math) as well as teacher-centered learning. Instead, they have students working among themselves in groups, loosely guided by the teacher in a drawn out attempt to “discover” math truths. When these types of curricula were introduced in District 2 in the 1990s, they were already controversial. They had been in use in both California and Texas, where parents and educators protested their use in great numbers and with varying effect. In numerous cases, the curricula were replaced by more traditional ones. Never had there been such a controversial attempt at math reform. I recall the “new math” of the 1970s and how disastrous a reform attempt that was. Even that failed effort generated significantly less negative publicity than this. With an eye toward bigger and better things, people in District 2 embraced these curricula. A lot of positive publicity was generated. People in line with the district leadership’s initiatives were regularly promoted within the system. The curricula became entrenched. The district leadership spoke in one voice regardless of the wellknown failures of these curricula. “Proving” their effectiveness was more important than honestly assessing them. We who either teach or parent District 2 students know of the failures of these curricula. We send our children to math tutors in record numbers. Intelligent, hard working children have trouble doing simple math.We who have grown up with an understanding of elementary math find that we can’t help our children; that many of the games they play and homework they do are so convoluted we either can’t figure them out or don’t see their significance. We’re forced to sit by and watch our children’s frustration. When we speak to school officials, we’re condescendingly told that we just need to understand what they’re doing. The truth is that many of us do understand what they’re doing. They’re doing irreparable harm to thousands of children. In my Upper East Side neighborhood, an incredible number of intelligent young students from the fourth grade and up are seeing private math tutors. Many of these are not the type of children who would normally struggle in arithmetic or elementary algebra. As a result of the way they’re taught elementary math, they find themselves unable to do real math. When they’re taught math in a more traditional way by their tutors, they invariably find themselves relieved and highly critical of the way they’ve been taught mathematics. At Stuyvesant, we have a disproportionate number of freshmen from District 2 taking our introductory algebra course. Most Stuyvesant students have already completed that course before they enter our school.The ratio of District 2 students to non-District 2 students in those classes is close to twice that same ratio in the freshman class as a whole. Would you invest all of your money in a speculative and controversial venture and then turn a blind eye to major problems that develop in that venture? That is what District 2 has done with our most precious assets when it concerns their math education. Math is a science that has been developed over thousands of years. It’s not just about adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, and solving the type of everyday problems associated with going to the supermarket. If it were, perhaps these curricula wouldn’t be so bad. Beginning at the middle-school level and continuing to the high school and college levels, it evolves into Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and various types of discrete mathematics. Today’s high school student is expected to master a significant amount of the aforementioned. Constructivist math curricula attempt to teach math by having the students “discover” their own methods for solving problems. A great deal of time and energy is spent having students “discover” things such as if you’re multiplying 98 by 28, you could multiply the “friendly number 100” by 28 and from that subtract that extra 2 x 28. And 2 x 28 can be found by multiplying 2 by 30 and subtracting 2 x 2. This is fine for this problem and, in fact, is how many good mathematicians would perform this computation in their heads. However, it takes too long and it won’t work for calculations such as 34 x 67 or most others one would need to perform. The purpose of standard algorithms is to easily and quickly solve a whole class of problems. Once mastered, students no longer struggle with simple calculations. Unfortunately, the constructivist curricula fail to recognize their importance and value. When taught properly, students are asked to do more than just commit them to memory (as constructivists often charge): They learn important principles, such as place value and the distributive property. Students who remain unskilled in their use often crash and burn when faced with the real problems of mathematics. Math has certain rules. Students must understand these rules in order to succeed in the field. Fundamental principles must be taught. A foundation must be set. Then one can build upon that foundation using the established rules of mathematics. When students are left on their own, or led by a wellmeaning teacher who is trained to teach these convoluted and inadequate curricula, not only don’t they learn to do simple arithmetic adequately, but they are also unable to take the natural step of learning to work with variables, which is where algebra begins. In fact, it’s totally unnatural for them. One must understand both the rules of the game, the fundamentals, and the standard algorithms of arithmetic in order to understand how algebra and higher math work.Without these understandings, constructivist math students have a very difficult time understanding, appreciating, and doing math at higher levels. So we’re stuck with children who have trouble with basic arithmetic and find it difficult, if not impossible, to advance much further. In middle school and high school, these students rarely complete the curricula because it takes far too long to “discover” truths that can easily be taught much better and faster by a skilled teacher. Even in the rare cases in which students do finish the material, they don’t have a sufficient background to succeed at higher mathematics. I wonder why District 2 hasn’t required the Regents exam for its students. Could it be that its curricula haven’t adequately prepared students for this minimum competency exam that is so simple that it requires little algebra to succeed? There is a simple solution to this problem. Courageous parents and educators must unite and demand that mathematical sanity be returned to our district and our city. Politics seems to be the only thing that has an effect on our leadership. Let’s let them know that the status quo is no longer acceptable -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Grant1 Posted: Feb 21 2007, 10:06 AM We have just begun to fight! Group: Member Posts: 3,167 Member No.: 117 Joined: 14-November 05 A shame... What I can see out of this is the plain fact that many that will do their research before next year will choose to opt out of LPS K-4 even more now since they can clearly see the research contradicts the math program that LPS has selected. They will choose alternative forms of education to obtain the curriculum they feel is best for their child. Thus furthering the losses of student enrollment in the district, not because anybody has physically left the district, but because they have educated themselves to find a better option. -------------------- Elect Patrice Mang, Eileen McDonnell and Steve Futrell on MAY 8th!!! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 21 2007, 10:09 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Board of Education reviewing alternatives to UCSMP Everyday Math District considers traditional math planBy Nanci G. Hutson THE NEWS-TIMES (Danbury, CT) May 31, 2005 NEW MILFORD - Board of Education member David A. Lawson said he is "cautiously optimistic" the district next year will try a traditional elementary math program to improve how students acquire skills. He suspects such a program would be less expensive than today's Everyday Math curriculum, the subject of considerable controversy this year. A week ago, about 20 parents and Board of Education members met with the math curriculum team to talk about ways to improve the elementary math program. Though some district administrators and elementary teachers say the current program has helped many students excel, parents have continually complained the current approach forces children to consider high-level math concepts before mastering basic skills. Some parents have said the program is difficult for them to follow, and often they cannot assist their children with homework. The program has no textbooks, just worksheets. Lawson said he recognizes institutional change is difficult, but he believes a more traditional program will not only meet the district's needs but exceed them. He said he is pleased the committee offered the opportunity for parent input. The curriculum committee has been considering a number of suggested, more traditional programs as pilots for the coming year. The intent is to expand on what exists so that students are able to master mathematics. This year's fourth-grade Connecticut Mastery Test scores showed a drop in math proficiency. Though some parents were quick to blame the current math program, district officials said those scores also reflect a budget reduction in tutorial supports and summer school programs to benefit those who struggle with math. Officials have said they are continually reviewing curriculum in all subject areas to find what might work better but don't want to make a change that might not achieve results. The decade-old Everyday Math Program does promote strong thinking and problem-solving skills, and for many students has proven effective as they advance to higher level mathematics, such as algebra and geometry. The one drawback that educators admit with the current program is a lack of attention on rote math skills, but most teachers supplement the program so that children master those skills before they leave the elementary grades. Board of Education Chairman Wendy Faulenbach said the committee has invested a lot of time with other districts and professional math consultants seeking a way to build on its current elementary math program. She and other administrators have said that whatever program is chosen must be one teachers endorse. "Everybody has a history of what they feel works best for their system," Faulenbach said. "There has been a lot of effort put into this." She said the committee is expected to bring recommendations to the board's Committee on Learning on June 16. Contact Nanci G. Hutson at nhutson@newstimes.com or at (860) 354-2274. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 21 2007, 10:15 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Arithmetic Problem. New Report Urges Return to Basics In Teaching Math Critics of 'Fuzzy' Methods Cheer Educators' Findings; Drills Without Calculators; Taking Cues From Singapore By John Hechinger The Wall Street Journal September 12, 2006 The nation's math teachers, on the front lines of a 17-year curriculum war, are getting some new marching orders: Make sure students learn the basics. In a report to be released today, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, which represents 100,000 educators from prekindergarten through college, will give ammunition to traditionalists who believe schools should focus heavily and early on teaching such fundamentals as multiplication tables and long division. The council's advice is striking because in 1989 it touched off the so-called math wars by promoting open-ended problem solving over drilling. Back then, it recommended that students as young as those in kindergarten use calculators in class. Those recommendations horrified many educators, especially college math professors alarmed by a rising tide of freshmen needing remediation. The council's 1989 report influenced textbooks and led to what are commonly called "reform math" programs, which are used in school systems across the country. The new approach puzzled many parents. For example, to solve a basic division problem, 120 divided by 40, students might cross off groups of circles to "discover" that the answer was three. Infuriated parents dubbed it "fuzzy math" and launched a countermovement. The council says its earlier views had been widely misunderstood and were never intended to excuse students from learning multiplication tables and other fundamentals. Nevertheless, the council's new guidelines constitute "a remarkable reversal, and it's about time," says Ralph Raimi, a University of Rochester math professor. view the entire piece... http://www.nychold.com/art-wsj-060912.html -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 21 2007, 10:28 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 From a publication in PA Oct, 2004, the article is titled Everyday Math Should Get Failing Score. The author documents the districts lagging math scores and rising attendance at Kumon... http://www.iror.org/documentation3/reading...iling_paper.pdf -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 21 2007, 11:05 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 An interesting video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvSFunUjx0 -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 21 2007, 11:07 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Opposed to Everyday Mathematics program in Hollis, NH By Tony Falcone, Ph.D. Jan 29, 2007 "I am a theoretical mathematician (Ph.D. UCLA 1996), who taught as an Adjunct Assistant Professor at UCLA for 2 years ('96-'98), and then as an Assistant Professor at Illinois State University (ISU) for 4 more years ('98-'02). In addition to my experience teaching college math and computer science, through interaction with many of my colleagues at ISU I became well-versed in issues of Mathematics Education. (ISU has one of the largest Math Ed. programs in the country.) In fact, many of my fellow faculty were involved in drafting the NCTM standards, both past and present. Both my daughter (eighth grade) and my son (fourth grade) have used EDM exclusively for their in-school math instruction. As a mathematician I find the program abysmal, and I know that I am not alone (amongst mathematicians and others) in this assessment. Let me share with you a portion of an email that I sent to our local (Hollis, NH) school board. This should serve to encapsulate (at least in part) my position on EDM. As you could tell, I am passionately opposed to the use of Everyday Math (EDM). My experience with it, both personal and professional, has been uniformly negative. I also have large amounts of anecdotal evidence that confirms that the only way our kids learn any math while using EDM in school is when parents become frustrated and just teach them math the "old fashioned" way. What I object to is the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome: everybody telling me how great this program is, but there being *absolutely no evidence* that it provides any benefit at all. What is particularly telling are the words and phrases that its advocates use: "It makes math more enjoyable," or "The kids really like the games." Of course they do! What I believe has happened is that the teachers have been sold a bill of goods: most elementary and middle school teachers, while being dedicated and tireless in their devotion to wanting to teach our children, have not received adequate training in mathematics. (This I can attest to from first-hand experience; I once taught Calc I to a group of students destined to be "math teachers." I failed half of them (many couldn't do high school algebra). What was particularly disturbing was the fact that failing my class did *not* dissuade them from wanting to be teachers, it merely "redirected" them: without passing Calculus they simply could no longer be *Secondary* (i.e., High School) math teachers; Calculus, it seems, wasn't required for Elementary or Middle School (math) teachers.) Hence, when a program (endorsed by "experts") comes along and tells them that *they can do a better job teaching math* by having the kids participate in group activities, making it "relevant" to their "everyday" lives, the teachers rush to adopt it: who wouldn't? However, the hard yet honest fact is that math is difficult, and requires work, dedication and perseverance to master. As Euclid said, "There is no royal road to mathematics." But beyond all this, what troubles me most is the fundamental philosophical flaw in EDM: It ignores the core beauty and power of mathematics, viz., that it is an edifice constructed out of pure reason, all of whose inferences and deductions flow logically and unarguably from more basic facts. EDM asks the students to flit willy-nilly from room to room or even floor to floor in this structure, without ever exposing them to the skeleton, the underlying architecture. The basic premise of EDM, so much so that its part of its name, that math should be valued or appreciated only insofar as it can be applied to "everyday things," is worse than misguided, it is a lie promulgated by people who, quite frankly, don't understand the first thing about mathematics. (Example: Do we study "Everyday English Literature?" Why do we still read Shakespeare? Are people really worried about being encountered by three old women stirring a big pot, and wanting to know how to deal with them?) Let me recount for you what I used to tell all my students the first day of class: Being in a (math) class is like buying a membership to Gold's Gym. If you come to class, sit passively by, and then complain that you didn't learn anything, that you just don't "get it," that is akin to walking into the gym a month after you bought your membership and complaining that you haven't gotten any stronger, even though you come to the gym everyday and watch people work out. Being in a class, or in school, provides only the *opportunity* to learn, the teacher is there to facilitate the learning process, but the effort must emanate from the student. In short, the "guided instruction" methodology, however well-intentioned, is in fact, "misguided": Imagine paying a tennis or golf pro to help improve your game, only to have her tell you to "try and discover the right method to strike the ball on your own." You would be justifiably outraged; you pay someone who is a better tennis player / golfer than you to *teach you the right way to do it.* Human minds are not designed to do math (unlike, say, to learn language); they need to be taught the right way to do it." ... Tony Falcone, Ph.D -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com 2tots Posted: Feb 21 2007, 11:35 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 301 Member No.: 359 Joined: 22-March 06 Thank you, ILIKELI, for posting these eye-opening articles on our new math program. If only the BOE and administration had not been so hasty in their decision to implement this program and done their OWN research. I have a first grader and a preschooler in the district so this will affect our family profoundly. May cannot get here soon enough. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 21 2007, 12:15 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Your are welcome. I think that parents who will be affected by this program need to know the concerns and criticisms of EM, past and present. They need to understand the foundation of the program and the techniques applied. It is so unfortunate that the administration did not feel the need to make this information available during the pilot phase. I also find it troubling that the BOE would protray EM's weaknesses as a thing of the past simply because the text has been updated. Again, the principles remain the same. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Bill Williamson Posted: Feb 21 2007, 05:40 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 78 Member No.: 406 Joined: 13-May 06 Does anyone know how math is taught in Japan, Germany, England, France, Italy, India or China. Grandholm and others are so concerned about our kids falling behind. Is the 1/2 Million dollars we're spending to get a program simiar to what these countries use? Is this money being spent so we will score high on the MEAPS. My feelings are that this program is a luxury we can't afford right now. Early retirement bailout: 70 people x $5000 ea for the first year alone = 350,000. 400,000 for EM + 80,000 on work books = 480,000. $20,000 for an E911 program more advanced than what our own city 911 operators use. Thats $850,000 being spent as if we have it in the bank. Those are just some of the extras approved during the 2-12-07 board meeting. Whether or not EM is right for us or not is secondary to LPS being able to afford it. How many Parapros can we keep with 480,000? ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 21 2007, 05:43 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Singapore is the nation that leads the world in math. Singapore math is a traditional program that many districts are looking at, have implemented and are having success with. Countries that produce high math achievers use traditional programs that teach standard algorithms and stress the mastery of basic facts. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 22 2007, 05:57 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 21 2007, 05:43 PM) Singapore is the nation that leads the world in math. Singapore math is a traditional program that many districts are looking at, have implemented and are having success with. Countries that produce high math achievers use traditional programs that teach standard algorithms and stress the mastery of basic facts. Too bad that it isn't a new fad with a cool name. After all, you can't be on the "cutting edge" of education with a "traditional" program. I wonder how many people at LPS justify thier jobs by looking for the latest experiment for our kids. Sigh...... -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 22 2007, 09:00 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Notice that EM was considered a fad back in 1999. It appears that many districts implemented it through the 90's, saw poor results and dropped it. Texas School Districts Reject “Fuzzy Math” Textbooks May 24, 1999 Major Defeat for Statewide Systemic Initiative San Antonio – According to an analysis of recent math textbook selections, Texas school districts have overwhelmingly rejected the latest fad in math instruction. Sometimes called “fuzzy math,” “whole math,” and “new new math,” textbooks based on this pedagogical approach received only 4% of the textbook orders for second grade math, 2% for fifth grade math, and 5.6% for seventh grade math. Ironically, those promoting this approach refer to it as “standards-based math.” This rejection is particularly significant given the fact that this instructional approach was heavily promoted throughout the state by the Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI), with funding from the National Science Foundation, operated by the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin - both groups publicly funded by tax dollars. “We are happy to see this educational fad bite the Texas dust. Fuzzy math has been shown to hurt children academically, especially disadvantaged and minority students. Thanks to discerning textbook committees in our school districts, parents can breathe a sigh of relief,” commented J.C. Bowman, TPPF Director of Research. Parents should watch for signs that their children are enrolled in “standards-based” math programs when students: Direct their own learning; work in groups to teach one another; construct their own math language, facts, and computations; are not taught or required to memorize facts or formulas; are taught to use calculators as the first and primary form of computation; and, are taught that deriving correct solutions lacks importance. TPPF, along with two other organizations Mathematically Correct and Education Connection of Texas released an analysis earlier this year to provide parents and school officials the information needed to make informed selections of elementary and middle school math textbooks. The analysis was sent to all school districts and local school board members throughout Texas and encouraged use of a “classical” instructional approach characterized by curricula that is taught directly, systematically, and incrementally in small structured and guided steps that progress from basic to more complex learning; instruction focused on specific academic content (not process or outcomes); repetition, practice, and memorization used to derive automaticity; and students receive immediate feedback and correction. The “fuzzy math” textbooks that were unsuccessfully promoted by the Statewide Systemic Initiative and Charles A. Dana Center were: (second grade books) Everyday Mathematics published by Everyday Learning Corporation; and Investigations in Number, Data and Space published by Addison Wesley Longman; (fifth grade books) Everyday Mathematics; and Investigations in Number, Data and Space; (seventh grade books) Math Thematics published by McDougal Littell; and Connected Mathematics published by Addison Wesley Longman. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 22 2007, 09:19 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 It is interesting that this town knew of all 3 programs being piloted and columns were written in their local newspaper against EM....maybe this is the reason that the LPS pilot was wasn't well publicized? Fuzzy Math in North Andover Paula Porten February, 2005 The budget process is underway in North Andover, in antici-pation of Town Meeting in May. Last week, North Andover Super-intendent of Schools, Dr. Harry Harutunian, presented his recommended school budget to the School Committee, the Board of Selectman, the Finance Committee and the rest of the community. One issue of concern and interest is the line item for math. North Andover schools are piloting three math programs in the elementary schools, one of which will be voted on by the School Committee. The three piloted programs are Everyday Math, Houghton Mifflin and McGraw Hill. Right now, Dr. Harutunian has budgeted $276,000, to cover the most costly of the programs, McGraw Hill. Everyday Math would cost the taxpayers $128,000, while Houghton Mifflin would be budgeted at $116,000. There are also future recurring costs involved as well. Everyday Math would cost $30,000 annually, Houghton Mifflin $27,000 and McGraw Hill $26,000. For months, several Valley Patriot columnists have issued warnings to the public against “Fuzzy Math” programs, which emphasize “critical thinking “like Everyday Math. These columnists stressed adopting a math program that teaches standard basics of arithmetic like multiplication, division and fractions. Programs like Houghton Mifflin, Singapore or Saxon fit that bill. These programs also avoid having students in the elementary grades develop a dependency on calculators. As a parent of a child in a second grade everyday math pilot program, I can say first -hand how disappointed I am with the program. My child continues to bring home assignments which require calculators. They play games in class that use calculators. Even as I type this, my daughter is asking me for a calculator to do her homework. No kidding! Over the past three years, The City of Newton has witnessed its students’ MCAS scores steadily decline. Today, 32% of sixth graders in Newton are now in the “warning” or “needs improvement” categories in math. The only factor that has changed for the worse is the implementation of “everyday math”. Newton’s demographics have remained constant and per-pupil spending has increased over this period. A recent study by EDSTAR, Inc., an independent consulting firm, of 428 schools throughout 24 school districts in California, Missouri, Illinois and South Carolina, compared Houghton Mifflin to numerous other math programs. In 2003, the researchers found that the Houghton Mifflin districts had significantly greater percentages of students scoring at or above grade level. The differences were statistically significant and the results held true in different states and on different tests. North Andover already has disturbing math MCAS scores. In 2004, 12% of 8th graders failed MCAS math, while 28% were in the “needed improvement” category. For 10th grade, 8% failed math and 19% needed improvement. Even at the Sargent School, 4th grade MCAS math scores in the categories of “failing” and “needs improvement” have unfortunately increased over the past three years. In 2002, 30% of Sargent 4th graders either “failed” or “needed improvement” in MCAS math. In 2003, that percentage increased to 37%, and in 2004, almost half the Sargent 4th grade students (46%) failed or needed improvement in MCAS math. These scores are a direct result of North Andover’s use of another “fuzzy math” program: TERC. We cannot afford to become Newton and parents demand performance. We want our children to excel in math and we want our School Committee to ensure they have the tools they need to succeed. We must encourage high expectations and elect representatives to the School Committee who support those expectations. Next month, the North Andover School Committee will pick a math program. The right thing for the North Andover children is for our School Committee to pick a math program that focuses on the development of solid mathematical foundations. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 22 2007, 09:25 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 They rejected EM... Thursday, March 24, 2005 Schools back to old-style math By Andy Smith Staff writer NORTH ANDOVER -- Call it a "constructivist approach" or call it "fuzzy math." It no longer matters, because the controversial Everyday Math program will not be part of the equation when elementary school classes resume in September.Everyday Math was one of three curriculums under consideration to replace the district's often criticized TERC program, which relies on less memorization and has been used by the schools for about five years. But the committee in charge of selecting a new curriculum unanimously chose one of the others, a more traditional program offered by publishing company Houghton Mifflin.A dozen classrooms in grades kindergarten through five used one of the pilot programs. In February, all elementary students were tested in math. Students in nine of the 12 classes scored higher on average than their peers in the TERC classrooms. Of the remaining three classrooms, two scored about equally on average to the TERC students. Pam Lathrop, principal of Franklin School and chairwoman of the Math Committee, said the average scores in the Houghton Mifflin classes were all higher than the TERC classes.Karen Trowbridge has a third-grade son in Franklin School who was part of the Houghton Mifflin pilot program. She called the program a significant improvement from TERC."I'm very happy to hear they selected it," she said. "The one they were using (TERC) asks kids to answer questions using pictures or words, and that was their big focus. I guess it's one of those new kinds of http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050324/FP_003.htm (1 of 3) [3/30/2005 10:51:00 PM] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 Schools back to old-style mathteaching strategies. But this one seems very straightforward. I don't know if it's considered old-fashioned, but you learn what you have to learn in a straightforward way." The pilot classrooms began in September. By November, critics were already calling for an end to the Everyday Math pilot, saying it is too similar to TERC, which many believe failed students.TERC embraces an educational approach known to its proponents as "constructivist" -- and to its critics as "fuzzy math." Emphasis is placed on collaborating to talk through problems, and math is put in the context of real-world scenarios. There is less emphasis on basic skills. Strict memorization of multiplication tables, for example, is not a high priority.Everyday Math also places greater emphasis on critical thinking over rote memorization. It uses a "spiraling" approach that provides a variety of nontraditional methods to accomplish addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. For example, in explaining ways to subtract, Everyday Math teaches a method that bears little resemblance to the 'borrowing' technique that adults would recall from their education.Among the vocal Everyday Math critics were School Committee candidate Ed Maguire and School Committee member Dr. Charles "Chuck" Ormsby. Both had recommended dropping Everyday Math in November. Yesterday, Ormsby said the best program was selected."Of the three math programs, that was definitely the one I was hoping would be picked," he said. "There was one particularly bad program that we wanted to avoid, and it was avoided."Committee Chairman Daniel J. Murphy was also satisfied with the committee's work, but added that it would have been wrong for Everyday Math to have been dropped prematurely."I was pleased that we did not interfere and that despite the request of some, we did not suggest that they take any of the pilot programs out of the running," Murphy said. "Frankly, if we had interfered, I'd be sitting here thinking maybe the well had been poisoned."The Math Committee included 24 teachers and administrators from the http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050324/FP_003.htm (2 of 3) [3/30/2005 10:51:00 PM] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3 Schools back to old-style mathdistrict, as well as one paid professional consultant. In addition to the February test results, they based their decision on teacher evaluations and input from students and parents.The committee judged the math programs on a variety of criteria and ultimately assigned each program a score between 1 and 5, with 1 being the highest possible score. Houghton Mifflin received an overall score of 1.2. MacMillan/McGraw-Hill followed with a 1.6. Everyday Math received a 2.8.Implementing the Houghton Mifflin program will cost the district about $124,600. Everyday Math would have cost about $128,000 and MacMillan/McGraw-Hill would have cost about $275,902. While Superintendent Harry K. Harutunian is searching everywhere for places to cut the school budget, Lathrop said potential cost had no impact on their decision.Ormsby said that even though he is happy with the decision, a new curriculum should not be considered the magic bullet solution."Just having a good curriculum isn't going to guarantee good results," he said. "It's important, but it's also important to have highly trained and motivated teachers and set high expectations for the students and have involvement from their parents. All of those things are necessary if we're going to do well in math."North Andover still scores higher than the state average in math. In 2004, 51 percent of the town's fourth-graders scored at proficient or advanced levels in math. That percentage was 1 point higher, 52 percent, in the sixth grade. The state scores were 42 percent for fourth-graders and 43 percent for sixth-graders -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 22 2007, 09:43 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Rhonda Thurman: Proof The New Math Was Fuzzy September 28, 2006 Once again, Hamilton County School System students have been used as guinea pigs and the experiment has failed. For those parents who have questioned the math being taught to your students, you have been vindicated. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has finally gotten their head out of the fog and admitted that maybe students should not be using calculators in kindergarten and students should memorize their math facts. Eureka!The NCTM has also admitted that it was time students got the right answer and not just an "gestimate." Imagine! On Sept. 12, on page one of the Wall Street Journal- "Arithmetic Problem. New Report Urges Return to Basics in Teaching Math. Critics of "Fuzzy" Methods Cheer Educators Findings; Drills Without Calculators." In 1998 Everyday Math, (one of the "fuzzy" math curriculums) was adopted in Hamilton County Elementary Schools and Connected Math (another one of the "fuzzy" math curriculums) was adopted in Hamilton County middle schools. Before the curriculums adoption, I urged parents through neighborhood meeting to oppose the "new new math" teaching because it relies heavily on the use of calculators beginning in kindergarten. The "new new math" also uses the "spiraling method" to teach instead of the building block method that had always been used. The building block method teaches students to master one concept before moving on to the next more complicated step. For instance, first, students memorize and master addition and subtraction facts, then they move on to multiplication and then division. The spiraling method, however, teaches several concepts in one week. If the concepts are not mastered, students move on. Teachers, students and parents are told not to worry if a concept is not understood because students will have another chance to "get it" when the concept "spirals" back around later. The Wall Street Journal 9/12/06, "In a report to be released today, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, which represents 100,000 educators from pre K through college, will give ammunition to traditionalists who believe school should focus heavily and early on teaching such fundamentals as multiplication tables and long division. The council's advice is striking because in 1989 it touched off the so-called math wars by promoting open-ended problem solving over drilling. Back then, it recommended that students as young as those in kindergarten use calculators in class. Those recommendations horrified many educators, especially college math professors alarmed by a rising tide of freshmen needing remediation... The new approach puzzled many parents. For example, to solve a basic division problem, 120 divided by 40, students might cross off groups of circles to "discover" that the answer is three." The article continues, "Understanding math, rather than parroting answers to poorly understood equations, was the council's controversial 1989 standards. Those guidelines called on teachers to promote estimation, rather than precise answers. For example, an elementary-school student tackling the problem 4,783 divided by 13 should instead divide 4,800 by 12 to arrive at "about 400," the 1989 report said. The council said this approach would enable children using calculators to "decide whether the correct keys were pressed and whether the calculator result is reasonable." September 25, 2006, an article titled "Parents Know the Right Equation for Teaching Math", written by Phyllis Schlafly says, " The new (NCTM) report called 'Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten Through Grade Eight Mathematics' is a back-to-basics victory that rejects the type of math curricula that parents had decried as "fuzzy math" or "rain forest math." Experts preferred such hoity-toity titles as "New New Math, " Connected Math," "Chicago Math," "Core-Plus Math," "Whole Math," "Interactive Math," or "Integrated Math." Whatever the title, these curricula imbedded the notion that estimates are acceptable in lieu of accurate answers to math problems so long as students feel good about what they are doing and can think up a reason for doing it. Fuzzy curricula were big on discussion, coloring, playing games, and early use of calculators." Several teachers contacted me at the first of the year to say they had been warned not to supplement the Everyday and Connected Math curriculums as they had done in past years. These teachers had been supplementing because their conscience would not let them deprive students basic math education they knew they needed. I hope this new NCTM report makes those in administration doing the teacher intimidation to back off and realize that those teachers who have been supplementing our "fuzzy math" curriculum have been doing the right thing to ensure their students learned the basics. The main reason Everyday and Connected Math curriculums were adopted in Hamilton County was because we received a $5 million National Science Foundation Grant from the federal government. (Another reason the federal government should not have anything to do with education.) So, HCDE who has never seen a grant they didn't like, decided to gamble on an unproven math program and lost. At the time Hamilton County adopted the curriculum in 1998, lawsuits had been filed by parents in other states to get rid of the "fuzzy math" and California had already kicked the "new new math" out of their state. The school board was well aware of these facts because every time I met with a group of parents to tell them of all the "fuzzy math" pitfalls a representative from the school system was there taking notes. Yet they chose to ignore the warnings and mark me off as a troublemaker. Only one board member did their own investigation and voted against the curriculum adoption, Mr. Eldridge. Even Harry Austin, who had ridiculed both Mr. Eldridge and myself for speaking out against the new math programs, had a "back to math basics" editorial in Sunday's TFP. The question now is, where do we go from here to try to adjust for the gaps created by these math programs? Someone in the Math Department should be held accountable for these decisions. Who should it be? I promise to try to find out the answers to these questions, because the students, parents and taxpayers deserve better. Rhonda Thurman County School Board Member Rthrm@aol.com -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Elisa Posted: Feb 22 2007, 12:58 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 607 Member No.: 64 Joined: 31-October 05 I haven't commented much on this topic but as the parent of 2 children currently engaged in constructivist math programs I feel compelled to share our experiences. Our district uses TERC Investigations and Connected Math. TERC is often mentioned alongside Everyday Math and shares much of the same conceptual foundation. Transitioning from the traditional instruction of LPS last year to the reform methods of this year has been difficult and challenging for everyone. My 5th grader has done slightly better as he came in with a firm mastery of the basic facts. During the 6 months we've been here, his math instruction has moved at a dizzying pace from percentages to fractions to decimals (all without division I might add) to the algebra he is currently studying. We have had to teach him division at home as it will not be covered at school. My 3rd grader has experienced much more difficulty. Addition and subtraction facts were scarcely covered with most of the drill work being sent home. Multiplication was covered and finished in 2 weeks tops. Mastery of these concepts wasn't expected or tested. She does not have an automatic recall of any of the basic facts and uses labor intensive drawings for any kind of computation. Most of her class time and homework is spent on "problem solving." These are very complex story problems that usually require graphs and long, wordy explanations of how and why you set up the problem/graph and so on. The assignments are nearly impossible for her to complete without a great deal of guidance. This year she is frustrated, confused and dislikes math immensely. We feel the need to either supplement and fill in the gaps at home or send her to tutoring like so many of her classmates. The use of Kumon and Huntington centers in our area is extensive. You do not have to be in the area long before you begin to hear about children attending tutoring. The fact that our district and the other district in the city both use reform math (they use Everyday Math) may have something to do with that. As a parent in the trenches with these programs, I can see the value of the conceptual learning but it shouldn't come at the cost of the mastery of basic skills. I also want to add that many, many districts in this area have moved away from these programs in favor of more traditional ones. I can honestly say that I hope that mine will follow suit. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 23 2007, 10:47 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 This cute little girl is a older than the child that spoke before the BOE and has a different perspective, if we are considering kids feelings and opinions maybe a wider range should be looked at... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyHER6o-4x0 -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com 2tots Posted: Feb 23 2007, 11:54 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 301 Member No.: 359 Joined: 22-March 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 10:47 AM) This cute little girl is a older than the child that spoke before the BOE and has a different perspective, if we are considering kids feelings and opinions maybe a wider range should be looked at... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyHER6o-4x0 Makes sense to me..... new school mom Posted: Feb 23 2007, 02:31 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 I LIke LI--I am curious what you do for a living that you can find so much free time to dig up this "stuff" on the internet??? Please don't take that the wrong way, just seems like you have an awful lot of time on your hands. And if you don't like EM very much were you at the BOE meeting to give you comments and concerns, as I recall the only people who spoke were in support, none against.....just wondering>>>>please don't take offense. Recalla Posted: Feb 23 2007, 03:38 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 233 Member No.: 437 Joined: 4-August 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 23 2007, 02:31 PM) I LIke LI--I am curious what you do for a living that you can find so much free time to dig up this "stuff" on the internet??? Please don't take that the wrong way, just seems like you have an awful lot of time on your hands. And if you don't like EM very much were you at the BOE meeting to give you comments and concerns, as I recall the only people who spoke were in support, none against.....just wondering>>>>please don't take offense. From what I've read from ILikeLI's posts, it is apparent that you sure don't have to "dig" too deep to find many, many articles and other information that do not support EM. I would think in light of the large amount of info not supporting EM, our Board of Education should have suggested taking more time to research this curriculum, instead stamping another seal of approval. I don't think that most of community was even aware of the EM pilot program until it was on the BOE's agenda. By that time, it's a little too late to "voice your concerns", because a vote for approval is usually only weeks away. -------------------- JOIN ME IN VOTING FOR PATRICE MANG, EILEEN McDONNELL AND STEVE FUTRELL ON MAY 8TH Grant1 Posted: Feb 23 2007, 03:45 PM We have just begun to fight! Group: Member Posts: 3,167 Member No.: 117 Joined: 14-November 05 You mean a vote for approval is weeks prior don't you -------------------- Elect Patrice Mang, Eileen McDonnell and Steve Futrell on MAY 8th!!! mega millions Posted: Feb 23 2007, 04:26 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 607 Member No.: 451 Joined: 9-August 06 QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 23 2007, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 23 2007, 02:31 PM) I LIke LI--I am curious what you do for a living that you can find so much free time to dig up this "stuff" on the internet??? Please don't take that the wrong way, just seems like you have an awful lot of time on your hands. And if you don't like EM very much were you at the BOE meeting to give you comments and concerns, as I recall the only people who spoke were in support, none against.....just wondering>>>>please don't take offense. From what I've read from ILikeLI's posts, it is apparent that you sure don't have to "dig" too deep to find many, many articles and other information that do not support EM. I would think in light of the large amount of info not supporting EM, our Board of Education should have suggested taking more time to research this curriculum, instead stamping another seal of approval. I don't think that most of community was even aware of the EM pilot program until it was on the BOE's agenda. By that time, it's a little too late to "voice your concerns", because a vote for approval is usually only weeks away. I know at some time over the summer or the end of last school year Shelia Alles was before the board discussing the revision of the K-4 math curriculum (at a committee of the whole meeting I think). While discussing the K-4 math program it was mentioned that the upper el kids were in a connected math curriculum. I believe after that is when everyone starting discussing the connected math program on the blog so that should give you the time frame of when this was. That would have been a great opportunity for anyone that was concerned about what curriculum was being looked at to step up. |
|
LPS Reform Blog++++LPS Salary List 12/07 LPS Salary List 6/09 Contact me at: LPSReformer@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 07:55 PM Post #10 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 8 ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 23 2007, 04:42 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 23 2007, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 23 2007, 02:31 PM) I LIke LI--I am curious what you do for a living that you can find so much free time to dig up this "stuff" on the internet??? Please don't take that the wrong way, just seems like you have an awful lot of time on your hands. And if you don't like EM very much were you at the BOE meeting to give you comments and concerns, as I recall the only people who spoke were in support, none against.....just wondering>>>>please don't take offense. From what I've read from ILikeLI's posts, it is apparent that you sure don't have to "dig" too deep to find many, many articles and other information that do not support EM. I would think in light of the large amount of info not supporting EM, our Board of Education should have suggested taking more time to research this curriculum, instead stamping another seal of approval. I don't think that most of community was even aware of the EM pilot program until it was on the BOE's agenda. By that time, it's a little too late to "voice your concerns", because a vote for approval is usually only weeks away. Exactly, it hasn't taken much time at all to find all of this information and more about EM. As far as what I do for a living, I'll just say that I have a very flexible schedule, have had experience in a few fields and have an extensive education. Thanks for asking I have stated this point previously but I'll say it again. The administration should have let the entire district know when the pilot was to take place, which programs would be used and how long it would be in place. additionally, they should have had all of the textbooks available at a central location for parents to view. Pretty simple and seems to be the standard pilot procedure in other districts. Or was all of this cryptically written and buired in some issue of the dialog? or announced at a PTA meeting with 5 people in attendance? Mega...so you are suggesting that we listen carefully to administration members at BOE meetings as they speak to decipher clues as to what is coming? What about plain old straightforward communication? newschoolmom...I find your approach to question the messenger rather than the content of the message confusing especially since your child is directly affected. I'd much rather dicuss the posted info on EM than my time management. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com mega millions Posted: Feb 23 2007, 04:56 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 607 Member No.: 451 Joined: 9-August 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 04:42 PM) QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 23 2007, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 23 2007, 02:31 PM) I LIke LI--I am curious what you do for a living that you can find so much free time to dig up this "stuff" on the internet??? Please don't take that the wrong way, just seems like you have an awful lot of time on your hands. And if you don't like EM very much were you at the BOE meeting to give you comments and concerns, as I recall the only people who spoke were in support, none against.....just wondering>>>>please don't take offense. From what I've read from ILikeLI's posts, it is apparent that you sure don't have to "dig" too deep to find many, many articles and other information that do not support EM. I would think in light of the large amount of info not supporting EM, our Board of Education should have suggested taking more time to research this curriculum, instead stamping another seal of approval. I don't think that most of community was even aware of the EM pilot program until it was on the BOE's agenda. By that time, it's a little too late to "voice your concerns", because a vote for approval is usually only weeks away. Exactly, it hasn't taken much time at all to find all of this information and more about EM. As far as what I do for a living, I'll just say that I have a very flexible schedule, have had experience in a few fields and have an extensive education. Thanks for asking I have stated this point previously but I'll say it again. The administration should have let the entire district know when the pilot was to take place, which programs would be used and how long it would be in place. additionally, they should have had all of the textbooks available at a central location for parents to view. Pretty simple and seems to be the standard pilot procedure in other districts. Or was all of this cryptically written and buired in some issue of the dialog? or announced at a PTA meeting with 5 people in attendance? Mega...so you are suggesting that we listen carefully to administration members at BOE meetings as they speak to decipher clues as to what is coming? What about plain old straightforward communication? newschoolmom...I find your approach to question the messenger rather than the content of the message baffling. I don't know what people wouldn't get about a change in K-4 math curriculum. I was at that meeting and I heard it loud and clear. If we want to know what is going on, we have the opportunity. Anyone can call or email Shelia Alles and inquire about which programs are being considered for a curriculum change if you don't want to go to the board meetings or committee of the whole meetings. There is also the opportunity to attend the curriculum committee meeting. I would think with the number of people in the CFLF that advocates for children and parents, that they would be able to divide and conquer to determine what is going on with respect to curriculum at any type of board meeting as well as inquire of the administration. cmic Posted: Feb 23 2007, 05:00 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 Mega, Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! mega millions Posted: Feb 23 2007, 05:04 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 607 Member No.: 451 Joined: 9-August 06 QUOTE (cmic @ Feb 23 2007, 05:00 PM) Mega, Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? Sarcasim? Yep. I think you do. The opportunity to inform ourselves is there. If we don't want to pay attention, then whose fault is that? ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 23 2007, 05:06 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 I don't know what people wouldn't get about a change in K-4 math curriculum. I was at that meeting and I heard it loud and clear. So at that time, you understood which programs were to be piloted, for how long and where the texts could be viewed? As far as calling Sheila Alles and attending curriculum meetings, that is something that not all parents will have the time for or feel comfortable doing. It is actually the responsibility of the administration to reach out and communicate/inform parents about changes that directly affect their child's learning. It isn't the parents' job to search out information, it is the district's duty to make sure parent's understand what is being looked at and then have the opportunity to ask questions before it is adopted. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com new school mom Posted: Feb 23 2007, 05:22 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 04:42 PM) newschoolmom...I find your approach to question the messenger rather than the content of the message confusing especially since your child is directly affected. I'd much rather dicuss the posted info on EM than my time management. I just grow tired of the messenger when the issue is done (already voted on and purchased) and when the committee went over the process extensively at 2 board meetings....again I will ask-where were you at the board meeting to speak out against EM?? Why use this blog to convey your thoughts/feelings?? No one on this blog can do anything about it now--where were all the people who thought this was a bad idea at the 2/12 board meeting??? We all thought the LI was a bad idea and we spoke out against it---now we use this blog??? doesn't seem like the right avenue to me, that's all--all it seems to do is stir the pot. I am directly affected by EM and I LIKE it, I haven't had any negative experiences---I know many people in Novi and PC that use it and LIKE it, they are pleased with their children's education. There are pros and cons to every program, I know this--but the TEACHERS on the committee were committed to the process and believe this is the best for our kids. All the board did was vote on the purchase, the TEACHERS committee did all the work-they believe their decison is the best for our kids, and I have to believe they (the TEACHERS) have the best interest of the kids at heart. congrats on the flexible schedule--wish I had one!!! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 23 2007, 05:33 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Don't you feel that it is important to inform, through this forum, parents of the criticisms and weaknessess of EM? Particularly since the majority of parents whose children will get this program in the fall have not even had the opportunity to view the text? For those parents that have no idea that EM uses alternative algorithms? That the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has advocated a return to traditional math after the documented failures of reform math? That EM has been driven out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards? That parents, teachers and kids across this country have expressed distress, falling test scores and lack of mastery of basic skills due to EM? That EM has been implemented and dropped in many, many districts? That many of our country's brightest minds in math have come out against EM and other reform programs, stating that children are poorly prepared for higher math by these programs? Shouldn't parents be aware of this? -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com NFarquharson Posted: Feb 23 2007, 05:53 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 05:33 PM) Don't you feel that it is important to inform, through this forum, parents of the criticisms and weaknessess of EM? Particularly since the majority of parents whose children will get this program in the fall have not even had the opportunity to view the text? For those parents that have no idea that EM uses alternative algorithms? That the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has advocated a return to traditional math after the documented failures of reform math? That EM has been driven out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards? That parents, teachers and kids across this country have expressed distress, falling test scores and lack of mastery of basic skills due to EM? That EM has been implemented and dropped in many, many districts? That many of our country's brightest minds in math have come out against EM and other reform programs, stating that children are poorly prepared for higher math by these programs? Shouldn't parents be aware of this? I am glad for the discussion and all of the posted research and articles. Although the decision has already been made, I know I will keep a close eye on my youngest's basic math skills and supplement if needed. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:00 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 23 2007, 05:53 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 05:33 PM) Don't you feel that it is important to inform, through this forum, parents of the criticisms and weaknessess of EM? Particularly since the majority of parents whose children will get this program in the fall have not even had the opportunity to view the text? For those parents that have no idea that EM uses alternative algorithms? That the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has advocated a return to traditional math after the documented failures of reform math? That EM has been driven out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards? That parents, teachers and kids across this country have expressed distress, falling test scores and lack of mastery of basic skills due to EM? That EM has been implemented and dropped in many, many districts? That many of our country's brightest minds in math have come out against EM and other reform programs, stating that children are poorly prepared for higher math by these programs? Shouldn't parents be aware of this? I am glad for the discussion and all of the posted research and articles. Although the decision has already been made, I know I will keep a close eye on my youngest's basic math skills and supplement if needed. That has been my intention and goal in posting this information. If you know the criticisms you can be watchful of your child's progress. The information wasn't forthcoming from the district , so I felt a responsibility to put it out there. Although I still believe that many parent's will be blindsided by this approach when they actually see it in action. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Delynn Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:17 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 110 Member No.: 438 Joined: 5-August 06 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 04:56 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 04:42 PM) QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 23 2007, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 23 2007, 02:31 PM) I LIke LI--I am curious what you do for a living that you can find so much free time to dig up this "stuff" on the internet??? Please don't take that the wrong way, just seems like you have an awful lot of time on your hands. And if you don't like EM very much were you at the BOE meeting to give you comments and concerns, as I recall the only people who spoke were in support, none against.....just wondering>>>>please don't take offense. From what I've read from ILikeLI's posts, it is apparent that you sure don't have to "dig" too deep to find many, many articles and other information that do not support EM. I would think in light of the large amount of info not supporting EM, our Board of Education should have suggested taking more time to research this curriculum, instead stamping another seal of approval. I don't think that most of community was even aware of the EM pilot program until it was on the BOE's agenda. By that time, it's a little too late to "voice your concerns", because a vote for approval is usually only weeks away. Exactly, it hasn't taken much time at all to find all of this information and more about EM. As far as what I do for a living, I'll just say that I have a very flexible schedule, have had experience in a few fields and have an extensive education. Thanks for asking I have stated this point previously but I'll say it again. The administration should have let the entire district know when the pilot was to take place, which programs would be used and how long it would be in place. additionally, they should have had all of the textbooks available at a central location for parents to view. Pretty simple and seems to be the standard pilot procedure in other districts. Or was all of this cryptically written and buired in some issue of the dialog? or announced at a PTA meeting with 5 people in attendance? Mega...so you are suggesting that we listen carefully to administration members at BOE meetings as they speak to decipher clues as to what is coming? What about plain old straightforward communication? newschoolmom...I find your approach to question the messenger rather than the content of the message baffling. I don't know what people wouldn't get about a change in K-4 math curriculum. I was at that meeting and I heard it loud and clear. If we want to know what is going on, we have the opportunity. Anyone can call or email Shelia Alles and inquire about which programs are being considered for a curriculum change if you don't want to go to the board meetings or committee of the whole meetings. There is also the opportunity to attend the curriculum committee meeting. I would think with the number of people in the CFLF that advocates for children and parents, that they would be able to divide and conquer to determine what is going on with respect to curriculum at any type of board meeting as well as inquire of the administration. You know...most of the time I just take in what everyone is writing about.....my question is this, Mega Millions, if addressing the board directly at meetings and through email, doesn't work, if even a FOIA request doesn't provide any insight....why would any believe that a simple telephone call to Ms. Alles would? mega millions Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:19 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 607 Member No.: 451 Joined: 9-August 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:00 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 23 2007, 05:53 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 05:33 PM) Don't you feel that it is important to inform, through this forum, parents of the criticisms and weaknessess of EM? Particularly since the majority of parents whose children will get this program in the fall have not even had the opportunity to view the text? For those parents that have no idea that EM uses alternative algorithms? That the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has advocated a return to traditional math after the documented failures of reform math? That EM has been driven out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards? That parents, teachers and kids across this country have expressed distress, falling test scores and lack of mastery of basic skills due to EM? That EM has been implemented and dropped in many, many districts? That many of our country's brightest minds in math have come out against EM and other reform programs, stating that children are poorly prepared for higher math by these programs? Shouldn't parents be aware of this? I am glad for the discussion and all of the posted research and articles. Although the decision has already been made, I know I will keep a close eye on my youngest's basic math skills and supplement if needed. That has been my intention and goal in posting this information. If you know the criticisms you can be watchful of your child's progress. The information wasn't forthcoming from the district , so I felt a responsibility to put it out there. Although I still believe that many parent's will be blindsided by this approach when they actually see it in action. I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. I know another person on here posted about the security information night at Holmes Middle School with Mark Schultz. With a district the size of ours, I would have thought that we would have packed them in to hear what security measures are going on in the district. We didn't. We were lucky if there were 75 people there out of a district with over 17,000 kids. The district can offer, but if we dn't accept whose fault is it? When are we going to step up and take responsiblity for informing ourselves? You don't even need to attend the board meetings to do so, just by getting a copy of the agenda's you can see what items are being discussed and if something stands out to you, you are free to call or email to follow up with any questions you may have. Why are we televising these board meetings if people aren't paying attention to what is happening and only listening to audience communications? Seems like a waste to me and maybe another way to save some money. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:27 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. When and where were you informed that a pilot was going to be undertaken, which programs were to be piloted and where you could preview each text to be piloted? -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Zeke Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:29 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 174 Member No.: 309 Joined: 17-February 06 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:19 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:00 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 23 2007, 05:53 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 05:33 PM) Don't you feel that it is important to inform, through this forum, parents of the criticisms and weaknessess of EM? Particularly since the majority of parents whose children will get this program in the fall have not even had the opportunity to view the text? For those parents that have no idea that EM uses alternative algorithms? That the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has advocated a return to traditional math after the documented failures of reform math? That EM has been driven out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards? That parents, teachers and kids across this country have expressed distress, falling test scores and lack of mastery of basic skills due to EM? That EM has been implemented and dropped in many, many districts? That many of our country's brightest minds in math have come out against EM and other reform programs, stating that children are poorly prepared for higher math by these programs? Shouldn't parents be aware of this? I am glad for the discussion and all of the posted research and articles. Although the decision has already been made, I know I will keep a close eye on my youngest's basic math skills and supplement if needed. That has been my intention and goal in posting this information. If you know the criticisms you can be watchful of your child's progress. The information wasn't forthcoming from the district , so I felt a responsibility to put it out there. Although I still believe that many parent's will be blindsided by this approach when they actually see it in action. I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. I know another person on here posted about the security information night at Holmes Middle School with Mark Schultz. With a district the size of ours, I would have thought that we would have packed them in to hear what security measures are going on in the district. We didn't. We were lucky if there were 75 people there out of a district with over 17,000 kids. The district can offer, but if we dn't accept whose fault is it? When are we going to step up and take responsiblity for informing ourselves? You don't even need to attend the board meetings to do so, just by getting a copy of the agenda's you can see what items are being discussed and if something stands out to you, you are free to call or email to follow up with any questions you may have. Why are we televising these board meetings if people aren't paying attention to what is happening and only listening to audience communications? Seems like a waste to me and maybe another way to save some money. I also remember a night. It was in Churchill auditorium. Parent after parent after parent getting up to question the LI. It is not just information we are seeking, it is input into the decision process. So far I don't see anything meaningful. What good is it to go to a meeting to be told what they are going to do whether you like it or not? Now the only thing left is to give our input on May 8th. -------------------- 2nd Down & 4 to go! Delynn Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:33 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 110 Member No.: 438 Joined: 5-August 06 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:19 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:00 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 23 2007, 05:53 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 05:33 PM) Don't you feel that it is important to inform, through this forum, parents of the criticisms and weaknessess of EM? Particularly since the majority of parents whose children will get this program in the fall have not even had the opportunity to view the text? For those parents that have no idea that EM uses alternative algorithms? That the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has advocated a return to traditional math after the documented failures of reform math? That EM has been driven out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards? That parents, teachers and kids across this country have expressed distress, falling test scores and lack of mastery of basic skills due to EM? That EM has been implemented and dropped in many, many districts? That many of our country's brightest minds in math have come out against EM and other reform programs, stating that children are poorly prepared for higher math by these programs? Shouldn't parents be aware of this? I am glad for the discussion and all of the posted research and articles. Although the decision has already been made, I know I will keep a close eye on my youngest's basic math skills and supplement if needed. That has been my intention and goal in posting this information. If you know the criticisms you can be watchful of your child's progress. The information wasn't forthcoming from the district , so I felt a responsibility to put it out there. Although I still believe that many parent's will be blindsided by this approach when they actually see it in action. I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. I know another person on here posted about the security information night at Holmes Middle School with Mark Schultz. With a district the size of ours, I would have thought that we would have packed them in to hear what security measures are going on in the district. We didn't. We were lucky if there were 75 people there out of a district with over 17,000 kids. The district can offer, but if we dn't accept whose fault is it? When are we going to step up and take responsiblity for informing ourselves? You don't even need to attend the board meetings to do so, just by getting a copy of the agenda's you can see what items are being discussed and if something stands out to you, you are free to call or email to follow up with any questions you may have. Why are we televising these board meetings if people aren't paying attention to what is happening and only listening to audience communications? Seems like a waste to me and maybe another way to save some money. I respectfully disagree as well....I have at least several dozen unresponded to emails on my desktop right now. The responses that I have received have been "snarky" or incomplete at best. Especially those from Ms. Scheel, and Mr. Lessard. I don't know if you have an "inside track" to information, but let me tell you that I will only 'bang my head' against the wall so many times before I try a different avenue...It was made abundantly clear to me in the responses that I did receive that my input was not appreciated or wanted. Any questions directed to Dr. Liepa were quickly brushed off to someone else. I an through searching for the truth, answers, or anything else for that matter. Some seem to forget, we should not have to chase answers, they should be provided, provided quickly and provided accurately. If they are not, parents will take their educational dollars elsewhere, as we all have seen. The only thing I am interested in chasing around right now is my kids! If the BOE chooses to continue in this manner, instead of wasting time fruitlessly attempting to find answers, I will whole-heartedly spend it trying to elect those that will support the families of this district. I am disillusioned, disenfranchised, and disappointed in those chosen to represent my children. I will NOT search, beg and plead for responses from a BOE that has forgotten who they represent. mega millions Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:38 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 607 Member No.: 451 Joined: 9-August 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:27 PM) I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. When and where were you informed that a pilot was going to be undertaken, which programs were to be piloted and where you could preview each text to be piloted? As stated previously, it was at one of the committee of the whole meetings where Shelia Alles stated they are looking for a math program for K-4 to compliment the connected math program in the upper el (I am just working from memory here, as I didn't write down what was said). This was stated at a meeting at the end of last school year or at the beginning of the summer. Who knows prior to my attending board meetings if this was mentioned at any meetings, because I wasn't paying attention at that time, but I would not be suprised to hear that it was. I believe she stated what ones they were looking at, etc. At that point, I believe anyone interested should have contacted Mrs. Alles, their principal, a teacher or anyone in the administration to request more information if they were concered about the math curriculum offering in K-4. |
|
LPS Reform Blog++++LPS Salary List 12/07 LPS Salary List 6/09 Contact me at: LPSReformer@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 07:59 PM Post #11 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 9 mega millions Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:46 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 607 Member No.: 451 Joined: 9-August 06 QUOTE (Delynn @ Feb 23 2007, 06:33 PM) QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:19 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:00 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 23 2007, 05:53 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 05:33 PM) Don't you feel that it is important to inform, through this forum, parents of the criticisms and weaknessess of EM? Particularly since the majority of parents whose children will get this program in the fall have not even had the opportunity to view the text? For those parents that have no idea that EM uses alternative algorithms? That the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has advocated a return to traditional math after the documented failures of reform math? That EM has been driven out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards? That parents, teachers and kids across this country have expressed distress, falling test scores and lack of mastery of basic skills due to EM? That EM has been implemented and dropped in many, many districts? That many of our country's brightest minds in math have come out against EM and other reform programs, stating that children are poorly prepared for higher math by these programs? Shouldn't parents be aware of this? I am glad for the discussion and all of the posted research and articles. Although the decision has already been made, I know I will keep a close eye on my youngest's basic math skills and supplement if needed. That has been my intention and goal in posting this information. If you know the criticisms you can be watchful of your child's progress. The information wasn't forthcoming from the district , so I felt a responsibility to put it out there. Although I still believe that many parent's will be blindsided by this approach when they actually see it in action. I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. I know another person on here posted about the security information night at Holmes Middle School with Mark Schultz. With a district the size of ours, I would have thought that we would have packed them in to hear what security measures are going on in the district. We didn't. We were lucky if there were 75 people there out of a district with over 17,000 kids. The district can offer, but if we dn't accept whose fault is it? When are we going to step up and take responsiblity for informing ourselves? You don't even need to attend the board meetings to do so, just by getting a copy of the agenda's you can see what items are being discussed and if something stands out to you, you are free to call or email to follow up with any questions you may have. Why are we televising these board meetings if people aren't paying attention to what is happening and only listening to audience communications? Seems like a waste to me and maybe another way to save some money. I respectfully disagree as well....I have at least several dozen unresponded to emails on my desktop right now. The responses that I have received have been "snarky" or incomplete at best. Especially those from Ms. Scheel, and Mr. Lessard. I don't know if you have an "inside track" to information, but let me tell you that I will only 'bang my head' against the wall so many times before I try a different avenue...It was made abundantly clear to me in the responses that I did receive that my input was not appreciated or wanted. Any questions directed to Dr. Liepa were quickly brushed off to someone else. I an through searching for the truth, answers, or anything else for that matter. Some seem to forget, we should not have to chase answers, they should be provided, provided quickly and provided accurately. If they are not, parents will take their educational dollars elsewhere, as we all have seen. The only thing I am interested in chasing around right now is my kids! If the BOE chooses to continue in this manner, instead of wasting time fruitlessly attempting to find answers, I will whole-heartedly spend it trying to elect those that will support the families of this district. I am disillusioned, disenfranchised, and disappointed in those chosen to represent my children. I will NOT search, beg and plead for responses from a BOE that has forgotten who they represent. I would like to respond to comment about an inside track. Once again, no bat phone, no inside track. Sometimes you need to know who to ask and sometimes it is better to start at the school level than the superindentent or school board member. LPS employees people to do their jobs and those should be the people answering the questions. If you have a question about your taxes, do you ask City Council or do you ask the City Clerk? You can ask either, but who is going to provide you with the answer the fastest? Sometimes we have the answers we are seeking, we just don't like them and that is where the problem is. I have the same access to every board member and administrator that everyone else does. As for not chasing the answers, that is your personal choice to do so, but if it were important to me, I wouldn't give up. As for taking your educational $$$ elsewhere, again your choice and one that no one can take away from you. Delynn Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:59 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 110 Member No.: 438 Joined: 5-August 06 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:46 PM) QUOTE (Delynn @ Feb 23 2007, 06:33 PM) QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:19 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:00 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 23 2007, 05:53 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 05:33 PM) Don't you feel that it is important to inform, through this forum, parents of the criticisms and weaknessess of EM? Particularly since the majority of parents whose children will get this program in the fall have not even had the opportunity to view the text? For those parents that have no idea that EM uses alternative algorithms? That the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has advocated a return to traditional math after the documented failures of reform math? That EM has been driven out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards? That parents, teachers and kids across this country have expressed distress, falling test scores and lack of mastery of basic skills due to EM? That EM has been implemented and dropped in many, many districts? That many of our country's brightest minds in math have come out against EM and other reform programs, stating that children are poorly prepared for higher math by these programs? Shouldn't parents be aware of this? I am glad for the discussion and all of the posted research and articles. Although the decision has already been made, I know I will keep a close eye on my youngest's basic math skills and supplement if needed. That has been my intention and goal in posting this information. If you know the criticisms you can be watchful of your child's progress. The information wasn't forthcoming from the district , so I felt a responsibility to put it out there. Although I still believe that many parent's will be blindsided by this approach when they actually see it in action. I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. I know another person on here posted about the security information night at Holmes Middle School with Mark Schultz. With a district the size of ours, I would have thought that we would have packed them in to hear what security measures are going on in the district. We didn't. We were lucky if there were 75 people there out of a district with over 17,000 kids. The district can offer, but if we dn't accept whose fault is it? When are we going to step up and take responsiblity for informing ourselves? You don't even need to attend the board meetings to do so, just by getting a copy of the agenda's you can see what items are being discussed and if something stands out to you, you are free to call or email to follow up with any questions you may have. Why are we televising these board meetings if people aren't paying attention to what is happening and only listening to audience communications? Seems like a waste to me and maybe another way to save some money. I respectfully disagree as well....I have at least several dozen unresponded to emails on my desktop right now. The responses that I have received have been "snarky" or incomplete at best. Especially those from Ms. Scheel, and Mr. Lessard. I don't know if you have an "inside track" to information, but let me tell you that I will only 'bang my head' against the wall so many times before I try a different avenue...It was made abundantly clear to me in the responses that I did receive that my input was not appreciated or wanted. Any questions directed to Dr. Liepa were quickly brushed off to someone else. I an through searching for the truth, answers, or anything else for that matter. Some seem to forget, we should not have to chase answers, they should be provided, provided quickly and provided accurately. If they are not, parents will take their educational dollars elsewhere, as we all have seen. The only thing I am interested in chasing around right now is my kids! If the BOE chooses to continue in this manner, instead of wasting time fruitlessly attempting to find answers, I will whole-heartedly spend it trying to elect those that will support the families of this district. I am disillusioned, disenfranchised, and disappointed in those chosen to represent my children. I will NOT search, beg and plead for responses from a BOE that has forgotten who they represent. I would like to respond to comment about an inside track. Once again, no bat phone, no inside track. Sometimes you need to know who to ask and sometimes it is better to start at the school level than the superindentent or school board member. LPS employees people to do their jobs and those should be the people answering the questions. If you have a question about your taxes, do you ask City Council or do you ask the City Clerk? You can ask either, but who is going to provide you with the answer the fastest? Sometimes we have the answers we are seeking, we just don't like them and that is where the problem is. I have the same access to every board member and administrator that everyone else does. As for not chasing the answers, that is your personal choice to do so, but if it were important to me, I wouldn't give up. As for taking your educational $$$ elsewhere, again your choice and one that no one can take away from you. Please don't insult my intelligence or abilities...I have called the schools directly, and while nice, respectfully, and more than willing to offer any assistance they can provide without jeopardizing thier positions, on most occassions, they can offer only little more assistance than I can find on my own.... My point to you is this, respectfully, that I ALREADY have a full time job, thanks, I am not a "stay at home mom" with extra time on my hands. (as if they do either!) I don't have the extra time to devote to "chase my tail" Let me explain it another way....if you ran a business and had an employee who routinely made hasty decisions, whether the outcome was good or not, routinely hid facts, or expected you to have to devote ANY extra time trying to uncover the truth, or even behaved in a trite, rude, condesending manner to those your business was supposed to serve....would you retain that employee, spend the time playing that game or would you instead turn your attention and take the time to find a suitable replacement? Mega, whatever floats your boat, but for me and my family, I want to spend my extra time being with my family, not the BOE! How you choose to spend your free time is completely up to you! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:38 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:27 PM) I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. When and where were you informed that a pilot was going to be undertaken, which programs were to be piloted and where you could preview each text to be piloted? As stated previously, it was at one of the committee of the whole meetings where Shelia Alles stated they are looking for a math program for K-4 to compliment the connected math program in the upper el (I am just working from memory here, as I didn't write down what was said). This was stated at a meeting at the end of last school year or at the beginning of the summer. Who knows prior to my attending board meetings if this was mentioned at any meetings, because I wasn't paying attention at that time, but I would not be suprised to hear that it was. I believe she stated what ones they were looking at, etc. At that point, I believe anyone interested should have contacted Mrs. Alles, their principal, a teacher or anyone in the administration to request more information if they were concered about the math curriculum offering in K-4. I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. Maybe you can post the minutes of this? -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com plmask Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 265 Member No.: 307 Joined: 16-February 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:12 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? One thing is for certain, if they had fully informed parents about the pilot and the programs being used, they would have had a whole lot of questions from concerned parents to answer. A lot more than the BOE posed. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:13 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (Delynn @ Feb 23 2007, 06:17 PM) QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 04:56 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 04:42 PM) QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 23 2007, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 23 2007, 02:31 PM) I LIke LI--I am curious what you do for a living that you can find so much free time to dig up this "stuff" on the internet??? Please don't take that the wrong way, just seems like you have an awful lot of time on your hands. And if you don't like EM very much were you at the BOE meeting to give you comments and concerns, as I recall the only people who spoke were in support, none against.....just wondering>>>>please don't take offense. From what I've read from ILikeLI's posts, it is apparent that you sure don't have to "dig" too deep to find many, many articles and other information that do not support EM. I would think in light of the large amount of info not supporting EM, our Board of Education should have suggested taking more time to research this curriculum, instead stamping another seal of approval. I don't think that most of community was even aware of the EM pilot program until it was on the BOE's agenda. By that time, it's a little too late to "voice your concerns", because a vote for approval is usually only weeks away. Exactly, it hasn't taken much time at all to find all of this information and more about EM. As far as what I do for a living, I'll just say that I have a very flexible schedule, have had experience in a few fields and have an extensive education. Thanks for asking I have stated this point previously but I'll say it again. The administration should have let the entire district know when the pilot was to take place, which programs would be used and how long it would be in place. additionally, they should have had all of the textbooks available at a central location for parents to view. Pretty simple and seems to be the standard pilot procedure in other districts. Or was all of this cryptically written and buired in some issue of the dialog? or announced at a PTA meeting with 5 people in attendance? Mega...so you are suggesting that we listen carefully to administration members at BOE meetings as they speak to decipher clues as to what is coming? What about plain old straightforward communication? newschoolmom...I find your approach to question the messenger rather than the content of the message baffling. I don't know what people wouldn't get about a change in K-4 math curriculum. I was at that meeting and I heard it loud and clear. If we want to know what is going on, we have the opportunity. Anyone can call or email Shelia Alles and inquire about which programs are being considered for a curriculum change if you don't want to go to the board meetings or committee of the whole meetings. There is also the opportunity to attend the curriculum committee meeting. I would think with the number of people in the CFLF that advocates for children and parents, that they would be able to divide and conquer to determine what is going on with respect to curriculum at any type of board meeting as well as inquire of the administration. You know...most of the time I just take in what everyone is writing about.....my question is this, Mega Millions, if addressing the board directly at meetings and through email, doesn't work, if even a FOIA request doesn't provide any insight....why would any believe that a simple telephone call to Ms. Alles would? Because she has Faith in them. -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! NFarquharson Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:13 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? Less than what it cost to send letters to every district resident with pictures of each school board member proclaiming the wonders of the LI just prior to the recall election. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! Delynn Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:13 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 110 Member No.: 438 Joined: 5-August 06 QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? They had no problem sending out anti-recall letters, or showing transitional notes in backpacks. You know....they can't communication effectively information that they haven't devoted the time to digest or understand.... Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:15 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:46 PM) QUOTE (Delynn @ Feb 23 2007, 06:33 PM) QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:19 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:00 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 23 2007, 05:53 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 05:33 PM) Don't you feel that it is important to inform, through this forum, parents of the criticisms and weaknessess of EM? Particularly since the majority of parents whose children will get this program in the fall have not even had the opportunity to view the text? For those parents that have no idea that EM uses alternative algorithms? That the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has advocated a return to traditional math after the documented failures of reform math? That EM has been driven out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards? That parents, teachers and kids across this country have expressed distress, falling test scores and lack of mastery of basic skills due to EM? That EM has been implemented and dropped in many, many districts? That many of our country's brightest minds in math have come out against EM and other reform programs, stating that children are poorly prepared for higher math by these programs? Shouldn't parents be aware of this? I am glad for the discussion and all of the posted research and articles. Although the decision has already been made, I know I will keep a close eye on my youngest's basic math skills and supplement if needed. That has been my intention and goal in posting this information. If you know the criticisms you can be watchful of your child's progress. The information wasn't forthcoming from the district , so I felt a responsibility to put it out there. Although I still believe that many parent's will be blindsided by this approach when they actually see it in action. I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. I know another person on here posted about the security information night at Holmes Middle School with Mark Schultz. With a district the size of ours, I would have thought that we would have packed them in to hear what security measures are going on in the district. We didn't. We were lucky if there were 75 people there out of a district with over 17,000 kids. The district can offer, but if we dn't accept whose fault is it? When are we going to step up and take responsiblity for informing ourselves? You don't even need to attend the board meetings to do so, just by getting a copy of the agenda's you can see what items are being discussed and if something stands out to you, you are free to call or email to follow up with any questions you may have. Why are we televising these board meetings if people aren't paying attention to what is happening and only listening to audience communications? Seems like a waste to me and maybe another way to save some money. I respectfully disagree as well....I have at least several dozen unresponded to emails on my desktop right now. The responses that I have received have been "snarky" or incomplete at best. Especially those from Ms. Scheel, and Mr. Lessard. I don't know if you have an "inside track" to information, but let me tell you that I will only 'bang my head' against the wall so many times before I try a different avenue...It was made abundantly clear to me in the responses that I did receive that my input was not appreciated or wanted. Any questions directed to Dr. Liepa were quickly brushed off to someone else. I an through searching for the truth, answers, or anything else for that matter. Some seem to forget, we should not have to chase answers, they should be provided, provided quickly and provided accurately. If they are not, parents will take their educational dollars elsewhere, as we all have seen. The only thing I am interested in chasing around right now is my kids! If the BOE chooses to continue in this manner, instead of wasting time fruitlessly attempting to find answers, I will whole-heartedly spend it trying to elect those that will support the families of this district. I am disillusioned, disenfranchised, and disappointed in those chosen to represent my children. I will NOT search, beg and plead for responses from a BOE that has forgotten who they represent. I would like to respond to comment about an inside track. Once again, no bat phone, no inside track. Sometimes you need to know who to ask and sometimes it is better to start at the school level than the superindentent or school board member. LPS employees people to do their jobs and those should be the people answering the questions. If you have a question about your taxes, do you ask City Council or do you ask the City Clerk? You can ask either, but who is going to provide you with the answer the fastest? Sometimes we have the answers we are seeking, we just don't like them and that is where the problem is. I have the same access to every board member and administrator that everyone else does. As for not chasing the answers, that is your personal choice to do so, but if it were important to me, I wouldn't give up. As for taking your educational $$$ elsewhere, again your choice and one that no one can take away from you. I tried that with the Principle of Garfield. The man could put a stone wall to shame. -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! JoJo Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:15 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 445 Member No.: 331 Joined: 2-March 06 QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? I would think that an email and/or a letter in the back pack would be a better route to go. Maybe cheaper? Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:16 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 23 2007, 07:13 PM) QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? Less than what it cost to send letters to every district resident with pictures of each school board member proclaiming the wonders of the LI just prior to the recall election. And less than the approx $4,000,000 they lost by ignoring thier customers. -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! NFarquharson Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:17 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:38 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:27 PM) I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. When and where were you informed that a pilot was going to be undertaken, which programs were to be piloted and where you could preview each text to be piloted? As stated previously, it was at one of the committee of the whole meetings where Shelia Alles stated they are looking for a math program for K-4 to compliment the connected math program in the upper el (I am just working from memory here, as I didn't write down what was said). This was stated at a meeting at the end of last school year or at the beginning of the summer. Who knows prior to my attending board meetings if this was mentioned at any meetings, because I wasn't paying attention at that time, but I would not be suprised to hear that it was. I believe she stated what ones they were looking at, etc. At that point, I believe anyone interested should have contacted Mrs. Alles, their principal, a teacher or anyone in the administration to request more information if they were concered about the math curriculum offering in K-4. Let me ask for some clarification: Are you saying that as long as something is mentioned once in some format one time, then a parent who misses that information should not complain later? Are you saying that everyone should watch and read everything LPS and if you miss something...just one little thing...too bad,your loss, keep quiet now because you missed your chance? Even you admit that one time you were not paying attention. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:19 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:38 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:27 PM) I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. When and where were you informed that a pilot was going to be undertaken, which programs were to be piloted and where you could preview each text to be piloted? As stated previously, it was at one of the committee of the whole meetings where Shelia Alles stated they are looking for a math program for K-4 to compliment the connected math program in the upper el (I am just working from memory here, as I didn't write down what was said). This was stated at a meeting at the end of last school year or at the beginning of the summer. Who knows prior to my attending board meetings if this was mentioned at any meetings, because I wasn't paying attention at that time, but I would not be suprised to hear that it was. I believe she stated what ones they were looking at, etc. At that point, I believe anyone interested should have contacted Mrs. Alles, their principal, a teacher or anyone in the administration to request more information if they were concered about the math curriculum offering in K-4. Hmmmm.... So how do those of us without kids in LPS yet find out this information? -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! Recalla Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:21 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 233 Member No.: 437 Joined: 4-August 06 Note to self: Contact the ENTIRE central office and administrative staff once per week, to find out "what's brewing" in the district. Then I'll feel really informed. How absurd. -------------------- JOIN ME IN VOTING FOR PATRICE MANG, EILEEN McDONNELL AND STEVE FUTRELL ON MAY 8TH NFarquharson Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:21 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (Livonia Voter @ Feb 23 2007, 07:19 PM) QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:38 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:27 PM) I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. When and where were you informed that a pilot was going to be undertaken, which programs were to be piloted and where you could preview each text to be piloted? As stated previously, it was at one of the committee of the whole meetings where Shelia Alles stated they are looking for a math program for K-4 to compliment the connected math program in the upper el (I am just working from memory here, as I didn't write down what was said). This was stated at a meeting at the end of last school year or at the beginning of the summer. Who knows prior to my attending board meetings if this was mentioned at any meetings, because I wasn't paying attention at that time, but I would not be suprised to hear that it was. I believe she stated what ones they were looking at, etc. At that point, I believe anyone interested should have contacted Mrs. Alles, their principal, a teacher or anyone in the administration to request more information if they were concered about the math curriculum offering in K-4. Hmmmm.... So how do those of us without kids in LPS yet find out this information? Pay attention! -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:24 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:46 PM) QUOTE (Delynn @ Feb 23 2007, 06:33 PM) QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 23 2007, 06:19 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 06:00 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 23 2007, 05:53 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 05:33 PM) Don't you feel that it is important to inform, through this forum, parents of the criticisms and weaknessess of EM? Particularly since the majority of parents whose children will get this program in the fall have not even had the opportunity to view the text? For those parents that have no idea that EM uses alternative algorithms? That the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has advocated a return to traditional math after the documented failures of reform math? That EM has been driven out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards? That parents, teachers and kids across this country have expressed distress, falling test scores and lack of mastery of basic skills due to EM? That EM has been implemented and dropped in many, many districts? That many of our country's brightest minds in math have come out against EM and other reform programs, stating that children are poorly prepared for higher math by these programs? Shouldn't parents be aware of this? I am glad for the discussion and all of the posted research and articles. Although the decision has already been made, I know I will keep a close eye on my youngest's basic math skills and supplement if needed. That has been my intention and goal in posting this information. If you know the criticisms you can be watchful of your child's progress. The information wasn't forthcoming from the district , so I felt a responsibility to put it out there. Although I still believe that many parent's will be blindsided by this approach when they actually see it in action. I respectfully disagree with your statement that the information was not forthcoming from the district. If we want to be informed, we will be informed. I know another person on here posted about the security information night at Holmes Middle School with Mark Schultz. With a district the size of ours, I would have thought that we would have packed them in to hear what security measures are going on in the district. We didn't. We were lucky if there were 75 people there out of a district with over 17,000 kids. The district can offer, but if we dn't accept whose fault is it? When are we going to step up and take responsiblity for informing ourselves? You don't even need to attend the board meetings to do so, just by getting a copy of the agenda's you can see what items are being discussed and if something stands out to you, you are free to call or email to follow up with any questions you may have. Why are we televising these board meetings if people aren't paying attention to what is happening and only listening to audience communications? Seems like a waste to me and maybe another way to save some money. I respectfully disagree as well....I have at least several dozen unresponded to emails on my desktop right now. The responses that I have received have been "snarky" or incomplete at best. Especially those from Ms. Scheel, and Mr. Lessard. I don't know if you have an "inside track" to information, but let me tell you that I will only 'bang my head' against the wall so many times before I try a different avenue...It was made abundantly clear to me in the responses that I did receive that my input was not appreciated or wanted. Any questions directed to Dr. Liepa were quickly brushed off to someone else. I an through searching for the truth, answers, or anything else for that matter. Some seem to forget, we should not have to chase answers, they should be provided, provided quickly and provided accurately. If they are not, parents will take their educational dollars elsewhere, as we all have seen. The only thing I am interested in chasing around right now is my kids! If the BOE chooses to continue in this manner, instead of wasting time fruitlessly attempting to find answers, I will whole-heartedly spend it trying to elect those that will support the families of this district. I am disillusioned, disenfranchised, and disappointed in those chosen to represent my children. I will NOT search, beg and plead for responses from a BOE that has forgotten who they represent. I would like to respond to comment about an inside track. Once again, no bat phone, no inside track. Sometimes you need to know who to ask and sometimes it is better to start at the school level than the superindentent or school board member. LPS employees people to do their jobs and those should be the people answering the questions. If you have a question about your taxes, do you ask City Council or do you ask the City Clerk? You can ask either, but who is going to provide you with the answer the fastest? Sometimes we have the answers we are seeking, we just don't like them and that is where the problem is. I have the same access to every board member and administrator that everyone else does. As for not chasing the answers, that is your personal choice to do so, but if it were important to me, I wouldn't give up. As for taking your educational $$$ elsewhere, again your choice and one that no one can take away from you. So, can I sum up your position as: LPS....Love it or Leave it. -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:33 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Maybe LPS needs to offer a Logic class. Logic, from Classical Greek logos (the word), is the study of patterns found in reasoning. The task of the logician is to set down rules for distinguishing between valid and fallacious inference, between rational and flawed arguments. Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy, one part of the classical trivium, which consisted of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Since the mid-nineteenth century formal logic has been studied as the foundation of mathematics. In 1903 Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead established logic as the cornerstone of mathematics with the publication of Principia Mathematica. The development of formal logic and its implementation in computing machinery is the foundation of computer science. As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic is therefore large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analyses of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com BoaterDan Posted: Feb 23 2007, 08:31 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:33 PM) Maybe LPS needs to offer a Logic class. Logic, from Classical Greek logos (the word), is the study of patterns found in reasoning. The task of the logician is to set down rules for distinguishing between valid and fallacious inference, between rational and flawed arguments. Ooh, we could have some fun conversations. I'd like to offer here that I started this whole journey specifically looking for a reason to believe the LI was a good decision and that CFLF was a bunch of kooks mad their neighborhood school had closed, as I suspected. While I haven't always agreed with CFLF and their tactics, what I found along the way was that you couldn't get a straight answer from this board or administration. Former trustee Morgan routinely twisted words or told outright lies. The administration claimed they didn't have district FTE employment numbers so they could be compared to Plymouth-Canton, in spite of the fact they are required to report them to the state. Nobody on the board or in the administration could give a logically sound argument of significance for why the LI was a good choice. Liepa said it only came about because of the financial crisis and would never have been considered otherwise while some trustees claimed it was a great thing regardless of the finances. This and many more things I personally witnessed or learned has brought me to where I am. Currently, I think for the most part simply that a culture of arrogance and power has slowly evolved on this board and administration and it has swallowed up what would otherwise be good people. It seems obvious the only way to change that is to break up the power block. They are the epitome of why the Open Meeting Act had to be enacted, and they continue to fight its principles. Were they recently discussing the idea of limiting Audience Communication to agenda items? Expressly forbidden by the OMA and Attorney General opinions. (Which I suspect is the only reason the idea was dropped.) Delynn Posted: Feb 23 2007, 08:37 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 110 Member No.: 438 Joined: 5-August 06 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 23 2007, 08:31 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:33 PM) Maybe LPS needs to offer a Logic class. Logic, from Classical Greek logos (the word), is the study of patterns found in reasoning. The task of the logician is to set down rules for distinguishing between valid and fallacious inference, between rational and flawed arguments. Ooh, we could have some fun conversations. I'd like to offer here that I started this whole journey specifically looking for a reason to believe the LI was a good decision and that CFLF was a bunch of kooks mad their neighborhood school had closed, as I suspected. While I haven't always agreed with CFLF and their tactics, what I found along the way was that you couldn't get a straight answer from this board or administration. Former trustee Morgan routinely twisted words or told outright lies. The administration claimed they didn't have district FTE employment numbers so they could be compared to Plymouth-Canton, in spite of the fact they are required to report them to the state. Nobody on the board or in the administration could give a logically sound argument of significance for why the LI was a good choice. Liepa said it only came about because of the financial crisis and would never have been considered otherwise while some trustees claimed it was a great thing regardless of the finances. This and many more things I personally witnessed or learned has brought me to where I am. Currently, I think for the most part simply that a culture of arrogance and power has slowly evolved on this board and administration and it has swallowed up what would otherwise be good people. It seems obvious the only way to change that is to break up the power block. They are the epitome of why the Open Meeting Act had to be enacted, and they continue to fight its principles. Were they recently discussing the idea of limiting Audience Communication to agenda items? Expressly forbidden by the OMA and Attorney General opinions. (Which I suspect is the only reason the idea was dropped.) Boater Dan.... All I can say to you at this point is THANK YOU! Your post explains very clearly what I was referring to earlier, much more concisely than I did! f11 Posted: Feb 23 2007, 08:52 PM LPS, transportation for all Group: Super Moderators Posts: 948 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-October 05 QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 23 2007, 07:21 PM) Note to self: Contact the ENTIRE central office and administrative staff once per week, to find out "what's brewing" in the district. Actually thats a good idea...and make sure to tell them who sent you.... livoniamom Posted: Feb 23 2007, 11:34 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 322 Member No.: 126 Joined: 15-November 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:12 PM) QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? One thing is for certain, if they had fully informed parents about the pilot and the programs being used, they would have had a whole lot of questions from concerned parents to answer. A lot more than the BOE posed. Though the studies posted here were interesting, I take more stock in the experiences of the LIVONIA teachers, the LIVONIA students and the LIVONIA parents who have been using this program since school started. No one who actually participated in the pilot (actually no one at all) stood before the board and urged them to reject this program. It sounds as if you are upset that you didn't know earlier that there was a pilot program taking place (although you would not have been included in it anyway). Also, you think all parents should have had the opportunity to review the text. My guess is very few parents that were not a part of the pilot would have been interested in reviewing the text -- also, can really form an opinion based on looking at the materials alone? Again, the fact that the pilot went well in LIVONIA and the fact that almost all our neighbors use this program (and enjoy higher MEAP scores then us) is enough for me. I simply value the opinions of the parents and teachers in this district WHO HAVE USED EM more then those in Elhurst, IL, New Milford, NY, etc... 2tots Posted: Feb 23 2007, 11:42 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 301 Member No.: 359 Joined: 22-March 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 23 2007, 05:22 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 04:42 PM) newschoolmom...I find your approach to question the messenger rather than the content of the message confusing especially since your child is directly affected. I'd much rather dicuss the posted info on EM than my time management. I just grow tired of the messenger when the issue is done (already voted on and purchased) and when the committee went over the process extensively at 2 board meetings....again I will ask-where were you at the board meeting to speak out against EM?? Why use this blog to convey your thoughts/feelings?? No one on this blog can do anything about it now--where were all the people who thought this was a bad idea at the 2/12 board meeting??? There were people at that meeting to ask questions and express their concerns regarding the EM. The problem is, the BOE voted on the issue BEFORE allowing time for these people to speak. We all got to hear from the supoorters of the idea since they were chosen to speak at the beginning of the meeting. Anyone else had to wait. After the vote, what point would there have been to express concerns? As much as I dislike the EM program (from what I have read about it and the articles are numerous), I am just as upset that once again the BOE chose NOT to engage the community in the discussion. ForMySons Posted: Feb 24 2007, 12:00 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 205 Member No.: 205 Joined: 8-December 05 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 23 2007, 11:34 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:12 PM) QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? One thing is for certain, if they had fully informed parents about the pilot and the programs being used, they would have had a whole lot of questions from concerned parents to answer. A lot more than the BOE posed. Though the studies posted here were interesting, I take more stock in the experiences of the LIVONIA teachers, the LIVONIA students and the LIVONIA parents who have been using this program since school started. No one who actually participated in the pilot (actually no one at all) stood before the board and urged them to reject this program. It sounds as if you are upset that you didn't know earlier that there was a pilot program taking place (although you would not have been included in it anyway). Also, you think all parents should have had the opportunity to review the text. My guess is very few parents that were not a part of the pilot would have been interested in reviewing the text -- also, can really form an opinion based on looking at the materials alone? Again, the fact that the pilot went well in LIVONIA and the fact that almost all our neighbors use this program (and enjoy higher MEAP scores then us) is enough for me. I simply value the opinions of the parents and teachers in this district WHO HAVE USED EM more then those in Elhurst, IL, New Milford, NY, etc... Livonia Mom--I respectfully disagree. 1. A lot of parents in this community have math oriented backgrounds--why shouldn't they have a chance to evaluate the materials and voice any concerns? I believe that strong math and science backgrounds are vital to this area's future. Any mis-step in our childrens' education can have truly hurt us. 2. What makes LPS so unique that results in other states do not matter, but results in nearby communities do matter? 3. Do the MEAP scores truly indicate the success of the program in the other neighboring areas? As mentioned earlier there are many factors that contribute to success. It could be that there are a lot of parents working with their kids or that are sending them to tutors. 4. My understanding is that the pilot was for only 1 semester. If that is a correct assumption, there is no way the teachers could evaluate long-term success. Was the pilot really long enough? new school mom Posted: Feb 24 2007, 07:47 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (ForMySons @ Feb 24 2007, 12:00 AM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 23 2007, 11:34 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:12 PM) QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? One thing is for certain, if they had fully informed parents about the pilot and the programs being used, they would have had a whole lot of questions from concerned parents to answer. A lot more than the BOE posed. Though the studies posted here were interesting, I take more stock in the experiences of the LIVONIA teachers, the LIVONIA students and the LIVONIA parents who have been using this program since school started. No one who actually participated in the pilot (actually no one at all) stood before the board and urged them to reject this program. It sounds as if you are upset that you didn't know earlier that there was a pilot program taking place (although you would not have been included in it anyway). Also, you think all parents should have had the opportunity to review the text. My guess is very few parents that were not a part of the pilot would have been interested in reviewing the text -- also, can really form an opinion based on looking at the materials alone? Again, the fact that the pilot went well in LIVONIA and the fact that almost all our neighbors use this program (and enjoy higher MEAP scores then us) is enough for me. I simply value the opinions of the parents and teachers in this district WHO HAVE USED EM more then those in Elhurst, IL, New Milford, NY, etc... Livonia Mom--I respectfully disagree. 1. A lot of parents in this community have math oriented backgrounds--why shouldn't they have a chance to evaluate the materials and voice any concerns? I believe that strong math and science backgrounds are vital to this area's future. Any mis-step in our childrens' education can have truly hurt us. 2. What makes LPS so unique that results in other states do not matter, but results in nearby communities do matter? 3. Do the MEAP scores truly indicate the success of the program in the other neighboring areas? As mentioned earlier there are many factors that contribute to success. It could be that there are a lot of parents working with their kids or that are sending them to tutors. 4. My understanding is that the pilot was for only 1 semester. If that is a correct assumption, there is no way the teachers could evaluate long-term success. Was the pilot really long enough? How we compare to our neighboring communities matters a great deal--to families searching for a school community for their families, why would yo move to livonia when meaps are better in surrounding communities??? (not that is the best indicator of success, but it is the only concrete indicator people have to eval a district)--that is also why studies of EM in other states don't really matter to me, EM "aligns with the states cirriculum" -per the district, maybe it doesn't align well with other states cirrciulums, maybe that's why it's not regarded highly (I don't know just speculating)......also, before the LI and before this blog, did the district inform all parents of cirriculum changes???-being a new school mom , I don't know the answer, but I suspect they did not, should they?? I don't know, but I do feel not different from other cirriculum changes--just that we now have an avenue to connect ourselves and speak about it, and beat it like a dead horse!! |
|
LPS Reform Blog++++LPS Salary List 12/07 LPS Salary List 6/09 Contact me at: LPSReformer@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 08:00 PM Post #12 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 10 new school mom Posted: Feb 24 2007, 08:04 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (ForMySons @ Feb 24 2007, 12:00 AM) [4. My understanding is that the pilot was for only 1 semester. If that is a correct assumption, there is no way the teachers could evaluate long-term success. Was the pilot really long enough? it was pioloted last spring and this fall--a full school year.--just for clarification. by the way that was stated I believe at both board meeting it was discussed. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 24 2007, 08:13 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it No one wants to be defeated Showin' how funky and strong is your fight It doesn't matter who's wrong or right Just beat it, beat it Just beat it, beat it Just beat it, beat it Just beat it, beat it -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com livoniamom Posted: Feb 24 2007, 08:21 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 322 Member No.: 126 Joined: 15-November 05 QUOTE (ForMySons @ Feb 24 2007, 12:00 AM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 23 2007, 11:34 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:12 PM) QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? One thing is for certain, if they had fully informed parents about the pilot and the programs being used, they would have had a whole lot of questions from concerned parents to answer. A lot more than the BOE posed. Though the studies posted here were interesting, I take more stock in the experiences of the LIVONIA teachers, the LIVONIA students and the LIVONIA parents who have been using this program since school started. No one who actually participated in the pilot (actually no one at all) stood before the board and urged them to reject this program. It sounds as if you are upset that you didn't know earlier that there was a pilot program taking place (although you would not have been included in it anyway). Also, you think all parents should have had the opportunity to review the text. My guess is very few parents that were not a part of the pilot would have been interested in reviewing the text -- also, can really form an opinion based on looking at the materials alone? Again, the fact that the pilot went well in LIVONIA and the fact that almost all our neighbors use this program (and enjoy higher MEAP scores then us) is enough for me. I simply value the opinions of the parents and teachers in this district WHO HAVE USED EM more then those in Elhurst, IL, New Milford, NY, etc... Livonia Mom--I respectfully disagree. 1. A lot of parents in this community have math oriented backgrounds--why shouldn't they have a chance to evaluate the materials and voice any concerns? I believe that strong math and science backgrounds are vital to this area's future. Any mis-step in our childrens' education can have truly hurt us. 2. What makes LPS so unique that results in other states do not matter, but results in nearby communities do matter? 3. Do the MEAP scores truly indicate the success of the program in the other neighboring areas? As mentioned earlier there are many factors that contribute to success. It could be that there are a lot of parents working with their kids or that are sending them to tutors. 4. My understanding is that the pilot was for only 1 semester. If that is a correct assumption, there is no way the teachers could evaluate long-term success. Was the pilot really long enough? 1. Ok -- if you really feel LPS was obligated to show every parent the text book fine -- but I doubt it would have changed the outcome. 2. Just as NSM said, the results in neighboring communities matter more. Our neighbors demographic make-up are similar to ours and they are evaluated the same way (MEAP). I know nothing about any of the districts mentioned on previous pages (soci-economic make-up, test scores before EM, size of the district). 3. I don't know if MEAP scores are a valid indicator of program success but you have to measure something. As BoaterDan said on another page, people point to MEAP scores when the scores support their case but discredit them when they don't. 4. I am not exactly sure how long this pilot ran -- many someone else knows. My child is in first grade and is given the same repetitive boring, unchallenging math homework every week (we were not in the pilot). I am all for something that will challenge her and keep her interested in math. I also think that her kindergarten year was very weak when it came to math and I understand that EM offers way more in the kindergarten year then we are used to. NFarquharson Posted: Feb 24 2007, 08:24 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 24 2007, 08:21 AM) My child is in first grade and is given the same repetitive boring, unchallenging math homework every week (we were not in the pilot). I am all for something that will challenge her and keep her interested in math. I also think that her kindergarten year was very weak when it came to math and I understand that EM offers way more in the kindergarten year then we are used to. Sounds like a problem with your child's teachers to me. My kids have not had that problem at all. This inconsistancy shows me the need to have one program, but I am not convinced it has to be Everyday Math. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! cmic Posted: Feb 24 2007, 08:43 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 24 2007, 08:47 AM) QUOTE (ForMySons @ Feb 24 2007, 12:00 AM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 23 2007, 11:34 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:12 PM) QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? One thing is for certain, if they had fully informed parents about the pilot and the programs being used, they would have had a whole lot of questions from concerned parents to answer. A lot more than the BOE posed. Though the studies posted here were interesting, I take more stock in the experiences of the LIVONIA teachers, the LIVONIA students and the LIVONIA parents who have been using this program since school started. No one who actually participated in the pilot (actually no one at all) stood before the board and urged them to reject this program. It sounds as if you are upset that you didn't know earlier that there was a pilot program taking place (although you would not have been included in it anyway). Also, you think all parents should have had the opportunity to review the text. My guess is very few parents that were not a part of the pilot would have been interested in reviewing the text -- also, can really form an opinion based on looking at the materials alone? Again, the fact that the pilot went well in LIVONIA and the fact that almost all our neighbors use this program (and enjoy higher MEAP scores then us) is enough for me. I simply value the opinions of the parents and teachers in this district WHO HAVE USED EM more then those in Elhurst, IL, New Milford, NY, etc... Livonia Mom--I respectfully disagree. 1. A lot of parents in this community have math oriented backgrounds--why shouldn't they have a chance to evaluate the materials and voice any concerns? I believe that strong math and science backgrounds are vital to this area's future. Any mis-step in our childrens' education can have truly hurt us. 2. What makes LPS so unique that results in other states do not matter, but results in nearby communities do matter? 3. Do the MEAP scores truly indicate the success of the program in the other neighboring areas? As mentioned earlier there are many factors that contribute to success. It could be that there are a lot of parents working with their kids or that are sending them to tutors. 4. My understanding is that the pilot was for only 1 semester. If that is a correct assumption, there is no way the teachers could evaluate long-term success. Was the pilot really long enough? How we compare to our neighboring communities matters a great deal--to families searching for a school community for their families, why would yo move to livonia when meaps are better in surrounding communities??? (not that is the best indicator of success, but it is the only concrete indicator people have to eval a district)--that is also why studies of EM in other states don't really matter to me, EM "aligns with the states cirriculum" -per the district, maybe it doesn't align well with other states cirrciulums, maybe that's why it's not regarded highly (I don't know just speculating)......also, before the LI and before this blog, did the district inform all parents of cirriculum changes???-being a new school mom , I don't know the answer, but I suspect they did not, should they?? I don't know, but I do feel not different from other cirriculum changes--just that we now have an avenue to connect ourselves and speak about it, and beat it like a dead horse!! It is called, "Teaching to the Test." -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! new school mom Posted: Feb 24 2007, 08:47 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 I agree, it's not great, but it is reality, isn't it??? cmic Posted: Feb 24 2007, 08:49 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 24 2007, 09:47 AM) I agree, it's not great, but it is reality, isn't it??? Sure, if we AGREE that the MEAP should be our curriculum. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! new school mom Posted: Feb 24 2007, 08:53 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (cmic @ Feb 24 2007, 08:49 AM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 24 2007, 09:47 AM) I agree, it's not great, but it is reality, isn't it??? Sure, if we AGREE that the MEAP should be our curriculum. I don't think anyone (but the state) will ever agree to that, but reality is no matter what state you live in schools are judged by a standardized test......it's reality, we have to live with it. cmic Posted: Feb 24 2007, 09:04 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 24 2007, 09:53 AM) QUOTE (cmic @ Feb 24 2007, 08:49 AM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 24 2007, 09:47 AM) I agree, it's not great, but it is reality, isn't it??? Sure, if we AGREE that the MEAP should be our curriculum. I don't think anyone (but the state) will ever agree to that, but reality is no matter what state you live in schools are judged by a standardized test......it's reality, we have to live with it. I know this, however I believe that it takes more than EM to have a successful math program. There must be drill and practice but there must also be differentiation that is included in the EM model. Not all kids learn the same. Some kids need to have manipulatives and drawings to help them. Others can just memorize the facts and are able to apply them. I think a math program has to reach all of its learners where they are at. EM seems to begin that process but falls apart when it comes to multiplication, division, fractions etc... The problem with the state is that they cram too much down the kids throats at one time. We don't want to teach multiplication tables yet at the end of 2nd grade our kids need to know the 0-5 facts and mind you 3's and 4's are not easy for kids. Kids are concrete learners when they are in 3rd grade yet they are expected to draw conclusions and formulate answers on anything but concrete information. The problem is the system and we are buying programs and supporting a flawed system out of a feeling of desperation. Spending money does not make a good program. Good teachers make a good program. And, good teachers align their curriculum to the benchmarks every day and differentiate for their students based on best practices, not the program of the day. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 24 2007, 09:24 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (f11 @ Feb 23 2007, 08:52 PM) QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 23 2007, 07:21 PM) Note to self: Contact the ENTIRE central office and administrative staff once per week, to find out "what's brewing" in the district. Actually thats a good idea...and make sure to tell them who sent you.... Well now, I guess I'll have to ask for the master list of all email addresses for the central office. Also, lets not forget the lovely practice of posting meeting changes only on the front door of the central office. Yes it fits the letter of the law. So I guess I'll need to set up an auto email for every 36 hours asking for any changes. -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! new school mom Posted: Feb 24 2007, 09:25 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (cmic @ Feb 24 2007, 09:04 AM) I know this, however I believe that it takes more than EM to have a successful math program. There must be drill and practice but there must also be differentiation that is included in the EM model. Not all kids learn the same. Some kids need to have manipulatives and drawings to help them. Others can just memorize the facts and are able to apply them. I think a math program has to reach all of its learners where they are at. EM seems to begin that process but falls apart when it comes to multiplication, division, fractions etc... The problem with the state is that they cram too much down the kids throats at one time. We don't want to teach multiplication tables yet at the end of 2nd grade our kids need to know the 0-5 facts and mind you 3's and 4's are not easy for kids. Kids are concrete learners when they are in 3rd grade yet they are expected to draw conclusions and formulate answers on anything but concrete information. The problem is the system and we are buying programs and supporting a flawed system out of a feeling of desperation. Spending money does not make a good program. Good teachers make a good program. And, good teachers align their curriculum to the benchmarks every day and differentiate for their students based on best practices, not the program of the day. Well said CMIC. and I know we have good teachers in this district, and I hope they will differentiate based on their students needs and supplement EM when necessary. From what I know based on my childs teacher, they are planning on that-because they know EM is flawed (as is every program)......thank you for your input!!! Grant1 Posted: Feb 24 2007, 10:42 AM We have just begun to fight! Group: Member Posts: 3,167 Member No.: 117 Joined: 14-November 05 "The problem is the system and we are buying programs and supporting a flawed system out of a feeling of desperation. Spending money does not make a good program. Good teachers make a good program. And, good teachers align their curriculum to the benchmarks every day and differentiate for their students based on best practices, not the program of the day." I agree with this statement at the highest level possible. Thanks CMIC for posting what many of us know, and for those who don't, really need to read this carefully and learn to understand what it means. Take care and keep up the good work with those kids! -------------------- Elect Patrice Mang, Eileen McDonnell and Steve Futrell on MAY 8th!!! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 24 2007, 10:50 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 The disrtict should have alerted parents as to the pilot program, which texts were being used and where they could view those books. This is standard procedure in many, many districts. Parents should have been given the opportunity, regardless of how many would have taken advantage of it, to careful consider the techniques in each program and then ask questions. Afterall, parents will be the ones ultimately responsible for the program working or not. Parents will be the ones dealing with the homework and so on. Additionally, where were the results of this pilot? It is also standard for districts to release the data or their results of pilot programs as justification for choosing a particular program. Where is the data for these 3 programs that were piloted for a year? Someone mentioned that the pilot "went well" How would you know that? This is a huge problem. Differentiation was discussed earlier. It is wonderful if your child is lucky enough to get a teacher who will differentiate but many do not, I've been through that first hand. LPS has no policy or criteria or protocol for differentiation. As a result, the child who gets the straight EM program will be at quite a disadvantage to the one who receives supplementation by a teacher who clearly sees the gaps in the program. But I do not think that you can count on differentiation across the board or in any even manner. Again, why adopt a program that needs so much supplementation and differentiation? The idea that good, valid research conducted in other states somehow does not apply to LPS defies the conceptual foundation of scientific research itself. That being the concept of generalizability. We are able to make generalizations through valid study. These studies are absolutely relevant to Livonia. Research does not have to take place within your community, with your children for it to be valid. Statistical analysis has moved way beyond those limitations. Also, the What Work's Clearinghouse has evaluated ALL of the data/study on EM and concluded that only 4 of the studies (in the 20+ years it has been in existance) met "with reservation" their evidence screens and that the program is deemed to have "potentially positive effects" Not exactly a resounding endorsement. There was also previous discussion of trusting TEACHERS with the choice of this program. In Sept. 2006 the National Council of TEACHERS of Mathematics- the world’s largest organization dedicated to improving math education, serving over 100,000 members and more than 240 Affiliates, published it's Focal Points in math stating that early instruction should return to traditional methods. Their affiliates in MI are the Detroit Area Council of Mathematics Teachers and Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathmematics. I wonder if any LPS teacher are members? Someone also mentioned that they value the opinions of teachers in LPS who have piloted the programs more than those in other sstates. Teachers in these other states have, in some cases, suffered with these programs for decades. How are these teachers direct experiences any less valid or important? I feel that it is awfully dangerous and closed minded to believe that all of the knowledge, insights and answers exist only within the boundary of LPS. Michigan seems to be the last stop for EM. In it's 20 year life it has made the rounds of the states. It has essentially been kicked out of CA, a state with this nation's highest math standards and has found itself dropped from districts in many other states. Parents in Texas brought their district to court over the use of reform math, TEACHERS have gone before their boards to request EM's removal, 200 of our nations brightest minds in math wrote an open letter to the Secretary of Education denouncing reform math, parents and kids have documented their dislike and struggle in every state....It is amazing that some can find no value, no relevance in any of that. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ForMySons Posted: Feb 24 2007, 11:03 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 205 Member No.: 205 Joined: 8-December 05 Thank you CMIC and ILIkeLI--you said it much better than I did! Elisa Posted: Feb 24 2007, 11:43 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 607 Member No.: 64 Joined: 31-October 05 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 23 2007, 11:34 PM) Again, the fact that the pilot went well in LIVONIA and the fact that almost all our neighbors use this program (and enjoy higher MEAP scores then us) is enough for me. I simply value the opinions of the parents and teachers in this district WHO HAVE USED EM more then those in Elmhurst, IL, New Milford, NY, etc... I lived in Livonia for 10 years and my kids attended LPS through 2nd and 4th grades before we moved to IL last August. Very close to Elmhurst, I might add. Nice community, demographics are so similiar to Livonia but that is really beside the point. Having been on both sides, I can confidently say that there are no startling differences between the people, teachers and children here and those in Livonia. Districts throughout this area were some of the first to adopt EM since it was developed here. Many of them used the program for a decade or more. There aren't too many that still use EM. It seems to have run it's course due to declining math scores, teacher dissatisfaction and parent outcry. I value and respect the education, skill and opinions of my kids teachers here just as much as I did of those in Livonia. I feel the same way about the parents here, they are just as dedicated and concientious as those in Livonia. I don't think that it is fair at all to characterize those of us residing elsewhere as so different that our experiences aren't valid or relevant to yours in Livonia, afterall, a good deal of us in other states actually came from Michigan, especially here in IL! BoaterDan Posted: Feb 24 2007, 12:03 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 23 2007, 11:34 PM) Though the studies posted here were interesting, I take more stock in the experiences of the LIVONIA teachers, the LIVONIA students and the LIVONIA parents who have been using this program since school started. No one who actually participated in the pilot (actually no one at all) stood before the board and urged them to reject this program. It sounds as if you are upset that you didn't know earlier that there was a pilot program taking place (although you would not have been included in it anyway). Also, you think all parents should have had the opportunity to review the text. My guess is very few parents that were not a part of the pilot would have been interested in reviewing the text -- also, can really form an opinion based on looking at the materials alone? Again, the fact that the pilot went well in LIVONIA and the fact that almost all our neighbors use this program (and enjoy higher MEAP scores then us) is enough for me. I simply value the opinions of the parents and teachers in this district WHO HAVE USED EM more then those in Elhurst, IL, New Milford, NY, etc... And that's exactly why research science is so exacting. Good research is designed specifically to eliminate clouding factors as much as possible, so you end up being able to draw solid conclusions about the relationship between the remaining variables. The success of the pilot program here really doesn't mean much. It is flawed in a dozen serious ways. Just one is that all we could POSSIBLY know is that it was the best of the three programs piloted, and never that it was the best thing out there. I'll bet if you could have taken our decade-old math program and injected the same kind of enthusiasm, games and involvement as the pilot got the results would have been very similar. Elementary kids like to play games. Who knew?! The fact that they like a math program with games more than the old one without them says NOTHING about the quality of math skills they are learning (or aren't). Ok, forget the research. You say almost all our neighbors use EM and have higher MEAPS than us (implying it's because of EM). Ok, it should be fairly easy to show using the MEAP trends that switching to EM is responsible for those higher scores. Without such an unbiased look at the facts, your point means absolutely zilch. So, we can look at research, or we can say forget the research and look evidences closer to home, you pick it. But either way it has to be looked at objectively and thoroughly, which was not done in any public way here. What we saw publicly was 90 minutes of cheerleading and not 5 minutes discussing the very real potential risks associated with this program, as identified by research and people with direct experience. And don't think for a minute a publisher/vendor with a $500,000 dollar sale (and $70,000 a year ongoing) on the line isn't perfectly aware of all that and trained to sell specifically to those points. |
|
LPS Reform Blog++++LPS Salary List 12/07 LPS Salary List 6/09 Contact me at: LPSReformer@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 08:28 PM Post #13 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 11 ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 24 2007, 12:35 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 24 2007, 12:03 PM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 23 2007, 11:34 PM) Though the studies posted here were interesting, I take more stock in the experiences of the LIVONIA teachers, the LIVONIA students and the LIVONIA parents who have been using this program since school started. No one who actually participated in the pilot (actually no one at all) stood before the board and urged them to reject this program. It sounds as if you are upset that you didn't know earlier that there was a pilot program taking place (although you would not have been included in it anyway). Also, you think all parents should have had the opportunity to review the text. My guess is very few parents that were not a part of the pilot would have been interested in reviewing the text -- also, can really form an opinion based on looking at the materials alone? Again, the fact that the pilot went well in LIVONIA and the fact that almost all our neighbors use this program (and enjoy higher MEAP scores then us) is enough for me. I simply value the opinions of the parents and teachers in this district WHO HAVE USED EM more then those in Elhurst, IL, New Milford, NY, etc... And that's exactly why research science is so exacting. Good research is designed specifically to eliminate clouding factors as much as possible, so you end up being able to draw solid conclusions about the relationship between the remaining variables. The success of the pilot program here really doesn't mean much. It is flawed in a dozen serious ways. Just one is that all we could POSSIBLY know is that it was the best of the three programs piloted, and never that it was the best thing out there. I'll bet if you could have taken our decade-old math program and injected the same kind of enthusiasm, games and involvement as the pilot got the results would have been very similar. Elementary kids like to play games. Who knew?! The fact that they like a math program with games more than the old one without them says NOTHING about the quality of math skills they are learning (or aren't). Ok, forget the research. You say almost all our neighbors use EM and have higher MEAPS than us (implying it's because of EM). Ok, it should be fairly easy to show using the MEAP trends that switching to EM is responsible for those higher scores. Without such an unbiased look at the facts, your point means absolutely zilch. So, we can look at research, or we can say forget the research and look evidences closer to home, you pick it. But either way it has to be looked at objectively and thoroughly, which was not done in any public way here. What we saw publicly was 90 minutes of cheerleading and not 5 minutes discussing the very real potential risks associated with this program, as identified by research and people with direct experience. And don't think for a minute a publisher/vendor with a $500,000 dollar sale (and $70,000 a year ongoing) on the line isn't perfectly aware of all that and trained to sell specifically to those points. "The success of the pilot program here really doesn't mean much..." BD, we really don't know if the program was successful or not compared to the other 2. Has anyone seen the data or results of this program? I've also read an awful lot about districts piloting and adopting EM because they received federal grant money to do so....does anyone know if LPS has receieved a grant for EM? "The main reason Everyday and Connected Math curriculums were adopted in Hamilton County was because we received a $5 million National Science Foundation Grant from the federal government. (Another reason the federal government should not have anything to do with education.) So, HCDE who has never seen a grant they didn't like, decided to gamble on an unproven math program and lost..." -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com cmic Posted: Feb 24 2007, 12:44 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 24 2007, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 24 2007, 12:03 PM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 23 2007, 11:34 PM) Though the studies posted here were interesting, I take more stock in the experiences of the LIVONIA teachers, the LIVONIA students and the LIVONIA parents who have been using this program since school started. No one who actually participated in the pilot (actually no one at all) stood before the board and urged them to reject this program. It sounds as if you are upset that you didn't know earlier that there was a pilot program taking place (although you would not have been included in it anyway). Also, you think all parents should have had the opportunity to review the text. My guess is very few parents that were not a part of the pilot would have been interested in reviewing the text -- also, can really form an opinion based on looking at the materials alone? Again, the fact that the pilot went well in LIVONIA and the fact that almost all our neighbors use this program (and enjoy higher MEAP scores then us) is enough for me. I simply value the opinions of the parents and teachers in this district WHO HAVE USED EM more then those in Elhurst, IL, New Milford, NY, etc... And that's exactly why research science is so exacting. Good research is designed specifically to eliminate clouding factors as much as possible, so you end up being able to draw solid conclusions about the relationship between the remaining variables. The success of the pilot program here really doesn't mean much. It is flawed in a dozen serious ways. Just one is that all we could POSSIBLY know is that it was the best of the three programs piloted, and never that it was the best thing out there. I'll bet if you could have taken our decade-old math program and injected the same kind of enthusiasm, games and involvement as the pilot got the results would have been very similar. Elementary kids like to play games. Who knew?! The fact that they like a math program with games more than the old one without them says NOTHING about the quality of math skills they are learning (or aren't). Ok, forget the research. You say almost all our neighbors use EM and have higher MEAPS than us (implying it's because of EM). Ok, it should be fairly easy to show using the MEAP trends that switching to EM is responsible for those higher scores. Without such an unbiased look at the facts, your point means absolutely zilch. So, we can look at research, or we can say forget the research and look evidences closer to home, you pick it. But either way it has to be looked at objectively and thoroughly, which was not done in any public way here. What we saw publicly was 90 minutes of cheerleading and not 5 minutes discussing the very real potential risks associated with this program, as identified by research and people with direct experience. And don't think for a minute a publisher/vendor with a $500,000 dollar sale (and $70,000 a year ongoing) on the line isn't perfectly aware of all that and trained to sell specifically to those points. "The success of the pilot program here really doesn't mean much..." BD, we really don't know if the program was successful or not compared to the other 2. Has anyone seen the data or results of this program? I've also read an awful lot about districts piloting and adopting EM because they received federal grant money to do so....does anyone know if LPS has receieved a grant for EM? "The main reason Everyday and Connected Math curriculums were adopted in Hamilton County was because we received a $5 million National Science Foundation Grant from the federal government. (Another reason the federal government should not have anything to do with education.) So, HCDE who has never seen a grant they didn't like, decided to gamble on an unproven math program and lost..." Ok, that is a little extreme. I am going to call a spade a spade. Just because the program chosen isn't the one that we want does NOT mean that federal grants shouldn't be given out. Smart people don't make broad statements like that. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 24 2007, 12:49 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 cmic, I didn't mean to say or imply, at all, that grants should be restricted or that districts shouldn't seek out grant money. In fact, they should and they are an under utilized source of support. My statement was simply this, I've read a bit about the NSF giving grant for this particular program. It is interesting because the NSF was the main funding source for UC's development of EM in the 80's. NSF has a big interest in EM. from the EM site: "The UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Center is an NSF-funded center established to support educators, parents and students who are using, or will soon be using, Everyday Mathematics" -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com cmic Posted: Feb 24 2007, 12:57 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 Thanks for clarifying. I was confused by this statement... Another reason the federal government should not have anything to do with education... which was referring to your comments on grants. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! Bill Williamson Posted: Feb 24 2007, 01:02 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 78 Member No.: 406 Joined: 13-May 06 We don't have $480,000 to spend on this program. If it is being mandated by the state to fill Grandholm's math dream, then we're stuck. If it is up to our elected trustee's to approve a model, it needs to have a proven track record. How is math is taught in Japan, Germany, England, France, Italy, India and China? I don't know how to google for that kind of info. If some of you know how, it would be interesting to learn more about how they do it. Perhaps if we can't beat them, join them? Elisa Posted: Feb 24 2007, 01:05 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 607 Member No.: 64 Joined: 31-October 05 QUOTE (Bill Williamson @ Feb 24 2007, 01:02 PM) We don't have $480,000 to spend on this program. If it is being mandated by the state to fill Grandholm's math dream, then we're stuck. If it is up to our elected trustee's to approve a model, it needs to have a proven track record. How is math is taught in Japan, Germany, England, France, Italy, India and China? I don't know how to google for that kind of info. If some of you know how, it would be interesting to learn more about how they do it. Perhaps if we can't beat them, join them? What to look for in a highly successful math program Just like reading, math instruction is most effective when it works from the foundation up. That means students must first be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide – without a calculator. Only then can they move on to other mathematical functions. Just as readers must have mastered phonics to understand large reading passages, students must be proficient in basic arithmetic before they can tackle tougher mathematical concepts. Traditional math advocates caution consumers about buzz phrases such as a “higher-order thinking,” “conceptual understanding,” and “solving problems,” says Mathematically Correct, an organization of parents, educators, mathematicians and others dismayed by the poor state of math instruction in the United States. “It neglects the systematic mastery of the fundamental building blocks necessary for success in any of these areas … they shun things like algorithms and repeated practice.” The following programs have one thing in common: they stress teaching the basics, without calculators, and their lessons build logically on concepts already taught. CER’s Mathematics “Best Bets” Saxon Math Description: Though Saxon’s reading program is also on the list, it is in math that the company made its name. Actually, the name comes from the company’s founder, John Saxon, who in 1979 started publishing textbooks designed to teach new math concepts while constantly reinforcing old. That constant reinforcement is the hallmark of the Saxon curriculum, as is producing textbooks that focus on skills, not pretty pictures, calculator use, or group work. Publisher: Saxon Publishers, Harcourt Achieve Grades: K-12 Web Site: http://saxonpublishers.harcourtachieve.com Progress in Mathematics Description: In the late ‘90s, the state of California came to a realization: its math scores were awful, and it needed new standards. In 1999 it adopted rigorous new standards that aimed to have every child prepared to learn algebra by the eighth grade. Of course, new standards required new curricula capable of meeting them. One of the best is Progress in Mathematics, which in a comparison available from Mathematically Correct, even beat Saxon in several areas. Where it especially stood out was in its mathematical reasoning content. Publisher: Sadlier-Oxford Grades: K-6 Web Site: http://www.sadlier-oxford.com/math/index.cfm Singapore Math Description: In 1995, eighth-graders in the tiny nation of Singapore finished first in the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS). In 1999 they repeated the feat. In contrast, the U.S. finished in the middle of the pack both times. Clearly they’re doing something right in Singapore — they’re stressing fundamentals to an extent not seen in U.S. programs. Singapore math starts by introducing first-graders to counting using blocks and pictures; teaches second grade students multiplication and division; and, by fourth grade, students are learning simple algebra. Most importantly, Singapore Math focuses on quick, mental calculations – students don’t even see a calculator until the seventh grade. Publisher: Various, but there is at least one easily accessible distributor of Singaporean textbooks in the U.S. Grades: K-12 Web Site: http://www.singaporemath.com/ ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 24 2007, 01:11 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Tuesday, September 12, 2006 Thinking Blocks -Singapore Math Connection The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(NCTM) released a report today reversing its long time support of "fuzzy " math in favor of teaching the basics. According to the Wall Street Journal: Francis Fennell, the council's president, says the latest guidelines move closer to the curriculum of Asian countries such as Singapore, whose students tend to perform better on international tests. There, children focus intensely on a relative handful of topics, such as multiplication, division and algebra, then practice by solving increasingly difficult word and other problems. That contrasts sharply with the U.S. approach, which the report noted has long been described as "a mile wide and an inch deep." Math Advantage teachers have been using the Singapore math curriculum for the past five years with astounding results. Students as young as 8 or 9 are solving complex math problems using the methods described in the currciulum. Math Advantage has tried for years to bring this program to the attention of Boston area educators without success. It is good to know that an organization as powerful and influential as the NCTM is giving the program its stamp of approval. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 24 2007, 01:12 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (Bill Williamson @ Feb 24 2007, 01:02 PM) We don't have $480,000 to spend on this program. If it is being mandated by the state to fill Grandholm's math dream, then we're stuck. If it is up to our elected trustee's to approve a model, it needs to have a proven track record. How is math is taught in Japan, Germany, England, France, Italy, India and China? I don't know how to google for that kind of info. If some of you know how, it would be interesting to learn more about how they do it. Perhaps if we can't beat them, join them? Many a government body has wasted money on the "new" way to solve a problem. Back during the beginning of the space race, both NASA and the Russian space agency were faced with a problem of how to write in space. Ink pens need gravity. NASA spent millions developing the space pen no gravity need! The Russians used pencils. The moral of the story is when it comes to math, LPS has entered the space age. -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! c3hull Posted: Feb 24 2007, 01:13 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,422 Member No.: 17 Joined: 25-October 05 I have a friend with 3 children using EM in Troy Public Schools. The 4th grader is having a hard time following the Lattice Method of multiplication and doesn’t understand why his school can’t “do it the way grandpa taught him.” The father is an engineer and had to Google the lattice method to figure out how it works. The mother does not like EM and says it’s torture helping with her son’s homework. Another problem is the “Home link”. That is the name for the homework-workbook (the consumables that will cost LPS $70,000 + annually). There are no examples on how the calculations are to be performed. The kids in both 2nd and 4th grade come home needing help almost daily. The parents know how to get the correct answers but don’t know how to do all of the steps of EM. Parents are on the phone often asking if “anyone gets it?” I was shown how to compute a 2 by 2 (48 X 19) multiplication problem using the Lattice Method just a few days ago. I couldn’t believe how complicated a simple problem could be!!! See this link: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LatticeMethod.html Furthermore, the kids are taught multiplication using the Partial Product Method. PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK FOR PARENTS OF 3RD GRADE EVERYDAY MATH AND SEE FOR YOURSELF! http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LatticeMethod.html After seeing two ways to multiply I was asked if I wanted to see how division was done. I said, “NO THANK YOU!!!” I have tutored math on and off for over 20 years and I think EM is TERRIBLE! Sorry, but that’s just my opinion. -------------------- VOTE FOR CHANGE ON MAY 8TH; VOTE FOR: MANG, MCDONNELL, & FUTRELL BoaterDan Posted: Feb 24 2007, 01:16 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 Just to clarify my ealier post, I did not mean to say that the efforts of the teachers involved in our pilot programs was a waste or that the time spent by the evaluation committee was a waste, or that the input of our teachers is not valuable. My opinion is quite the contrary. I have said before that the explanations directly from the teachers involved is not to be taken lightly, and I have greatly valued those that have come here to enlighten me. It's just that such information is really mostly anecdotal, for the reasons I've explained. It's fine with me if you have the attitude that you don't want to read cold scientific research and would rather hear what real people have to say. There are plenty around that aren't speaking very highly of EM. Same thing with the LI grade reconfiguration. We heard all kinds of cheerleading about Novi and the 5/6 consortium, but discussion of Holland or other districts where it had been a failure were avoided or dismissed. NFarquharson Posted: Feb 24 2007, 01:26 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 Maybe I am too old fashioned, but I really don't need to help my kids with math homework right now and I don't want to have to do that in the future. I am good at math but I am not a teacher. I think their teachers should teach (and they do) and any homework should be able to be done by the child. My parents NEVER helped with homework for me or my sisters. They focused on teaching us a love of learning and independence. We knew that it was our responsibility to do our homework. What is wrong with that? -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! cmic Posted: Feb 24 2007, 01:31 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (c3hull @ Feb 24 2007, 02:13 PM) I have a friend with 3 children using EM in Troy Public Schools. The 4th grader is having a hard time following the Lattice Method of multiplication and doesn’t understand why his school can’t “do it the way grandpa taught him.” The father is an engineer and had to Google the lattice method to figure out how it works. The mother does not like EM and says it’s torture helping with her son’s homework. Another problem is the “Home link”. That is the name for the homework-workbook (the consumables that will cost LPS $70,000 + annually). There are no examples on how the calculations are to be performed. The kids in both 2nd and 4th grade come home needing help almost daily. The parents know how to get the correct answers but don’t know how to do all of the steps of EM. Parents are on the phone often asking if “anyone gets it?” I was shown how to compute a 2 by 2 (48 X 19) multiplication problem using the Lattice Method just a few days ago. I couldn’t believe how complicated a simple problem could be!!! See this link: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LatticeMethod.html Furthermore, the kids are taught multiplication using the Partial Product Method. PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK FOR PARENTS OF 3RD GRADE EVERYDAY MATH AND SEE FOR YOURSELF! http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LatticeMethod.html After seeing two ways to multiply I was asked if I wanted to see how division was done. I said, “NO THANK YOU!!!” I have tutored math on and off for over 20 years and I think EM is TERRIBLE! Sorry, but that’s just my opinion. Wow! I have 2 thoughts on this... One is that it looks so overwhelming and complicated yet kind of fun! I don't believe that there is only one way to teach multiplication and perhaps some children will benefit from this approach. However, I do see that it can be a parents nightmare. Being an advocate of continual learning I do think parents can learn it and shouldn't use it as an excuse, but I don't see why we need to reinvent the wheel. What makes this method better? That is what I want to know. I am on the fence with EM, I really am. Many of my colleagues hate it and spend a lot of time supplementing the program. They use the connected math in 5th grade and middle school uses a variation of it and my friends complain about it all the time and are really worried about these children in the future. Also, it looks like a teachers nightmare to check, analyze and reteach! -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 24 2007, 01:46 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (c3hull @ Feb 24 2007, 01:13 PM) I have a friend with 3 children using EM in Troy Public Schools. The 4th grader is having a hard time following the Lattice Method of multiplication and doesn’t understand why his school can’t “do it the way grandpa taught him.” The father is an engineer and had to Google the lattice method to figure out how it works. The mother does not like EM and says it’s torture helping with her son’s homework. Another problem is the “Home link”. That is the name for the homework-workbook (the consumables that will cost LPS $70,000 + annually). There are no examples on how the calculations are to be performed. The kids in both 2nd and 4th grade come home needing help almost daily. The parents know how to get the correct answers but don’t know how to do all of the steps of EM. Parents are on the phone often asking if “anyone gets it?” I was shown how to compute a 2 by 2 (48 X 19) multiplication problem using the Lattice Method just a few days ago. I couldn’t believe how complicated a simple problem could be!!! See this link: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LatticeMethod.html Furthermore, the kids are taught multiplication using the Partial Product Method. PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK FOR PARENTS OF 3RD GRADE EVERYDAY MATH AND SEE FOR YOURSELF! http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LatticeMethod.html After seeing two ways to multiply I was asked if I wanted to see how division was done. I said, “NO THANK YOU!!!” I have tutored math on and off for over 20 years and I think EM is TERRIBLE! Sorry, but that’s just my opinion. Good input C3, I know that your background is extensive in math. Your mention of Troy lead me to this previous post..... The Effect of Chicago Math on Everyday Students This is an open letter to the Troy school district, Troy MI, regarding Chicago Math, which was recently introduced into the curriculum. This is merely one aspect of a frightening trend in elementary education, which we need to reverse, and soon, before school becomes as stressful as a day at the office. Dear Faculty and Staff: I am writing to express my concern about Chicago Math, which is currently being taught in the Troy elementary school system. This program has failed my two daughters, and is not the best choice for our students. First, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Karl Dahlke, and I have always loved mathematics. When I was in elementary school I quickly learned the basics of arithmetic, using the "traditional" method. By traditional, I mean the method most adults use to multiply and divide large numbers. Something like this: 4218 × 39 ------- 37962 12654 ------- 164502 I pursued advanced mathematics in high school, and then in college, obtaining a degree from Michigan State University, and another degree from the University of California Berkeley. The latter is easily one of the top ten graduate math programs in the country. Today I maintain a web site of mathematics at the undergraduate and post graduate level. You can visit it at MathReference.com. Before I attended Berkeley, I interviewed at the University of Chicago. I had a chance to talk to their staff, and I realized that this too was one of the finest math programs in the country. The professors at the University of Chicago tackle some of the most difficult math questions facing us today. I'm not sure why I didn't go there, since I already lived in Illinois. Maybe it was the Chicago winters. :-) In any case, I was a bit surprised to learn that these august professors had developed a math curriculum for elementary students. This is like asking Einstein to write a physics primer for young children. The resulting program is probably perfect for the gifted few who will go on to study math and physics in later life, while it confuses the hell out of the rest of us. Indeed, I believe this is the case with Chicago Math. (I have since learned that "Chicago Math" was not developed by the math department, but rather, the department of education at that university, which is now closed. Some of the math professors would like to distance themselves from "Chicago Math", but at this point it is easier said than done. Anyways, back to the subject at hand.) Consider multiplication and division. The program asks the student to draw various grids and maintain a catalog of intermediate results, with all the zeros in place. This is suppose to teach you, indirectly, that the integers form a ring, and that the traditional method works because of the distributive property of multiplication over addition, the commutative property of addition, and so on. I see where they are going with this program, but nobody else does, least of all the students. I have three children in the Troy school system, which is, by the way, one of the finest school districts in the country, with the best teachers I have ever seen. I am proud to have my children attend these schools. Our students are learning math and getting high scores on standardized tests, primarily because of these teachers, and in spite of Chicago Math. Let me illustrate with my two daughters. (My son is in special education, and is exempt from Chicago Math. He is learning math the traditional way. With all his disabilities, I am glad he does not have to slog through Chicago Math as well. That would simply be too much.) My first daughter, whom I will call Jane, is extremely bright. She is in the program for gifted children, and does well in all her subjects. Nothing slows her down, except Chicago Math. On rare occasions she has come to me in tears, asking for help. I show her what they are asking for, and she understands the process, but still seems confused. She applies it faithfully on the test and gets an A, but doesn't see the point of it all. Despite her keen intellect, she does not grasp the deeper meaning, the "why it all works". And if she doesn't get it, nobody does! And if nobody's getting it, then we may as well teach the traditional way and be done with it. My other daughter, Mary, has an average intelligence and a reading disability. Chicago Math has failed her completely, primarily because it entails a great deal of writing and copying. Intermediate results are scattered all over the page, and you have to be an accountant to keep track of everything. For a girl who is borderline dyslexic, every scratch of the pen is an opportunity for error. She needs to multiply and divide using a process that conserves ink as though it were liquid gold. Intermediate results should be kept to a minimum, and the answer should come together just below (multiplication) or above (division) the problem. In other words, she needs traditional math! I have seen Mary struggle mightily, as Chicago Math presented four awkward algorithms for division. (Yes, they use the word "algorithm". If you don't know what that means, where does that leave our kids?) Perhaps the creators of Chicago Math wanted these four methods to be optional, i.e. select the one that works best and use it to solve the problem, but that is not how Chicago Math is taught in our district. The student is expected to master each method, and is tested on each in turn. By the time the third method fights for territory in my daughter's brain, she is hopelessly confused. Furthermore, none of these methods are traditional, which is exactly what my daughter needs. After a year of confusion and frustration I taught my daughter how to multiply and divide using the traditional method. The problem is solved in a couple lines, rather than a page of scattered intermediate results that must be assembled correctly at the end like a jigsaw puzzle. I was able to teach her these concepts in one evening. She quickly learned how to multiply our phone number by a two digit number, and then we divided our phone number by a two digit number. The entire problem remained within her visual and mental focus at all times. At this point I would like to make a distinction between the kid-friendly story problems, and the confusing algorithms and procedures, introduced by Chicago Math. I like some of the story problems, dividing 47 pieces of candy among three friends, for instance, and I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. We should continue to incorporate these types of real-world problems in our curriculum. However, there is no point in presenting the above story problem until the student can divide 3 into 47, almost without thinking. The process should be automatic, like driving a car. Unfortunately the (otherwise helpful) story problems are brought in far too early in Chicago Math. Having seen several confusing division algorithms, Mary still had no idea how to divide 3 into 47 when the story problems came rolling in. While she was busy looking for "friendly pairs of numbers", (division algorithm number 3), she forgot the story completely. When she finally had an answer, and the book asked what to do with the remainder, Mary had no clue. It took her so long to do the math, she forgot all about the candy and the three friends. The benefits of the story problem were lost, because the confusing algorithms got in the way. As an analogy, you don't teach someone how to read a map and find their way around an unfamiliar city (the story problem) until they are completely comfortable driving the car. The young driver is so busy concentrating on the details of steering and braking, he hasn't got time to read directional signs or consult the map. In fact, the two tasks work against each other, making it impossible to learn either one. Adding insult to injury, Chicago Math teaches you to drive the car by opening up the hood, taking the engine apart, and putting it back together. You are suppose to understand everything from the thermodynamics of internal combustion to the hydraulics of the steering and brakes. When you want to turn right, you are suppose to manipulate all four steering rods with your hands and feet, while keeping your eyes on the road. For a girl who is borderline dyslexic and partly ADD, this is simply impossible. She just wants to drive the car! She doesn't need to know why it works; that comes later. So I showed her how to drive the car in the simplest terms, and she understands. She can now multiply 4218 by 39, as shown above. I just wish we could have skipped the years of confusion and frustration. In summary, I believe the awkward algorithms promoted by Chicago Math are inappropriate for most of our students. A small percentage of gifted children may grasp the deeper meaning, the detailed construction of the car's engine, but most will not. Many children are left behind, and cannot perform the simplest arithmetic operations that we take for granted. This is especially true for the kids who are already struggling. When I was a teen-ager I watched my younger siblings trying to learn the "New Math" that emerged in the late 60's and early 70's. I just shook my head in disbelief. I couldn't see the point of it. Why not teach them the same way I was taught? As Tom Lehrer quipped in his famous parody, "The important thing is to understand what you are doing, rather than to get the right answer." In the 80's New Math faded away, and I heaved a sigh of relief. Now we have Chicago Math, and that's even worse! I guess what goes around comes around. I encourage our school district to return to traditional mathematics, and I hope other districts will follow suit. At the same time, I hope we can retain the valuable aspects of Chicago Math. The alternate algorithms should be made available for the few who do not grasp traditional math, and each child should be allowed to use his favorite method, any method, to solve the problem, as long as he gets the right answer. But traditional math must be taught first, and most students won't need anything beyond that. When arithmetic can be performed automatically, using one method or another, bring in familiar story problems, and the child will put it all together. These are helpful indeed, provided the child has already mastered the basics. But please remember, traditional math, as a mechanical process, must come first. We've been teaching it for centuries, and despite a few fads in the 1970's and 1990's, there is still no better way. Sincerely, Karl Dahlke -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com livoniafootballmom Posted: Feb 24 2007, 02:18 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 157 Member No.: 431 Joined: 27-July 06 QUOTE (Bill Williamson @ Feb 24 2007, 01:02 PM) We don't have $480,000 to spend on this program. If it is being mandated by the state to fill Grandholm's math dream, then we're stuck. If it is up to our elected trustee's to approve a model, it needs to have a proven track record. How is math is taught in Japan, Germany, England, France, Italy, India and China? I don't know how to google for that kind of info. If some of you know how, it would be interesting to learn more about how they do it. Perhaps if we can't beat them, join them? While the below article is not the be all end all of research this was a joint effort by TIMSS and The IEA on world class schools and educations. It certainly shows some of the reasons that we might be lagging behind our Asian and European counterparts. One of them being the number of hours spent in school and on homework as well as what appears to be "tutoring" they call it "cram schools". Just a little info, I am still looking at other sites for other research articles. These are just some things to consider: World-class schools have a national curriculum and national testing. Of the 10 countries we studied, only the United States and Canada have no national curriculum. Other countries have a rigorous national curriculum. The Eastern Pacific Rim countries of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan offer top academic students the chance to excel at academic high schools where they take two science courses and two math courses per year during three years of high school. Singapore's students, who scored highest on the 1996 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) tests administered by the International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), attend academic high schools where they take three math courses and three science courses per year. In contrast, nearly 40 percent of the typical U.S. curriculum is dedicated to nonacademic subjects such as driver education and AIDS education, according to Japan and United States Education Compared, a 1992 Phi Delta Kappa publication. Otherwise, course titles vary only slightly among the 10 countries--with one notable exception: The United States is alone in not regularly offering some form of moral, religious, or values education. The emerging character education movement--definitely a world-class idea--might bring the United States in line with other countries. Many Americans continue to resist a national curriculum--and expect individual states to come up with world-class schools. This doesn't make sense to us, especially when most standardized tests are nationally normed and textbooks are nationally marketed. If textbook manufacturers could design books for a single curriculum, the books could surely be cheaper and better. (In Japan, a high school science or math textbook costs about as much as a U.S. workbook.) A national curriculum would also level the playing field on national tests like the American College Testing program and the Scholastic Assessment Test. And a national curriculum would certainly help children in our mobile society. One out of every six students attends three different schools by the |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 08:32 PM Post #14 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 12 livoniafootballmom Posted: Feb 24 2007, 02:18 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 157 Member No.: 431 Joined: 27-July 06 QUOTE (Bill Williamson @ Feb 24 2007, 01:02 PM) We don't have $480,000 to spend on this program. If it is being mandated by the state to fill Grandholm's math dream, then we're stuck. If it is up to our elected trustee's to approve a model, it needs to have a proven track record. How is math is taught in Japan, Germany, England, France, Italy, India and China? I don't know how to google for that kind of info. If some of you know how, it would be interesting to learn more about how they do it. Perhaps if we can't beat them, join them? While the below article is not the be all end all of research this was a joint effort by TIMSS and The IEA on world class schools and educations. It certainly shows some of the reasons that we might be lagging behind our Asian and European counterparts. One of them being the number of hours spent in school and on homework as well as what appears to be "tutoring" they call it "cram schools". Just a little info, I am still looking at other sites for other research articles. These are just some things to consider: World-class schools have a national curriculum and national testing. Of the 10 countries we studied, only the United States and Canada have no national curriculum. Other countries have a rigorous national curriculum. The Eastern Pacific Rim countries of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan offer top academic students the chance to excel at academic high schools where they take two science courses and two math courses per year during three years of high school. Singapore's students, who scored highest on the 1996 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) tests administered by the International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), attend academic high schools where they take three math courses and three science courses per year. In contrast, nearly 40 percent of the typical U.S. curriculum is dedicated to nonacademic subjects such as driver education and AIDS education, according to Japan and United States Education Compared, a 1992 Phi Delta Kappa publication. Otherwise, course titles vary only slightly among the 10 countries--with one notable exception: The United States is alone in not regularly offering some form of moral, religious, or values education. The emerging character education movement--definitely a world-class idea--might bring the United States in line with other countries. Many Americans continue to resist a national curriculum--and expect individual states to come up with world-class schools. This doesn't make sense to us, especially when most standardized tests are nationally normed and textbooks are nationally marketed. If textbook manufacturers could design books for a single curriculum, the books could surely be cheaper and better. (In Japan, a high school science or math textbook costs about as much as a U.S. workbook.) A national curriculum would also level the playing field on national tests like the American College Testing program and the Scholastic Assessment Test. And a national curriculum would certainly help children in our mobile society. One out of every six students attends three different schools by the third grade, and these are the children most likely to be left behind in math and reading skills. With a national curriculum, kids could use the same textbook and follow the same course of study as they move from school to school. The dawning of the information age has brought a further argument for a national curriculum: Children browsing the web need the same skills and information whether they live in Cullowhee, N.C., or Fairbanks, Alaska. The United States spends close to the world-class average on education. The amount of gross national product (GNP) that is spent on education is an important measure of a nation's commitment to education. In 1995, the percentage of GNP spent on elementary and secondary education in the countries we studied ranged from a low of 2.4 percent in Germany to a high of 4.62 percent in Canada, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). That same year, the United States spent 4.02 percent of its GNP on elementary and secondary education, according to UNESCO. The world-class average was 3.9 percent. The U.S. per-pupil expenditure for K-12 education--which averaged $6,098 in the 1995-96 school year--is among the most generous in the world, but it includes more funds for transportation, food, custodians, and other services than other countries spend. Asian students, for example, walk or use public transportation, and German schools generally do not include cafeterias. In some countries, teachers and students clean their own classrooms rather than rely on janitors. The United States also spends more on special education and extracurricular activities, such as marching bands and football teams. When you strip away the extras, it's almost impossible to figure accurately how much the United States spends on education, but it's safe to guess that we are in the mid-range of what other countries spend. It's not unreasonable for a rich country to provide these extras, but communities should know what they're paying for and resist comparing U.S. education costs to those in other countries that don't provide the extras. U.S. students spend less time in school and on schoolwork than students in other countries. The U.S. school year of 180 days is considerably below the world-class average of approximately 201 days. This means that, over 13 years of school, the United States provides more than one full year less schooling than the world-class average. Some U.S. educators seem to consider 180 a sacred number that can never be changed. But we should look to France, where the school year was recently lengthened, and Japan, where it was shortened. Other countries are examining each other's school systems and copying what works. Students in other countries often spend more than 13 years on their basic education. There is a clear international trend toward providing more early childhood education. New Zealand reports half of all 2-year-olds are in preschool. In France, almost 100 percent of 3-year-olds are enrolled in preschool. In Eastern Pacific Rim countries, students continue their studies after regular school hours by enrolling in private "cram schools," where elementary school students receive instruction in the arts while older students receive additional preparation for competitive high school entrance exams. World-class schools have larger class sizes than U.S. schools. Very large classes are the norm in many countries. Korea--whose students placed second on the 1996 TIMSS math test--reports 93 percent of its eighth-graders are in classes of 41 students or more. In first-place Singapore, 18 percent were in such large classes; 72 percent were in classes of 31 to 40. At the middle-school level, U.S. educators generally consider 30 students the borderline between large and small classes. Sixteen percent of U.S. eighth-grade math teachers have classes with more than 30 students, according to the IEA. In the other countries we studied, an average of 27 percent reported such large classes. As any teacher can tell you, tolerable class size depends on student behavior. The countries with large classes generally have students who are well-behaved and motivated. The presence of lazy or misbehaving students in U.S. classrooms partially explains the need for smaller classes. If, by some miracle, better behaved and more serious students started showing up in U.S. classrooms, larger classes might be possible (though not necessarily desirable). World-class students turn off television and turn on to homework. World-class schools use homework--which is free--to increase learning time. Many U.S. teachers lack formal training in the use of homework, and many U.S. parents rebel at the idea that students should do homework consistently. In 1996, U.S. eighth-graders averaged 2.3 hours per day on homework, slightly less than the international average of 2.4 hours, according to IEA. Singapore students spent a whopping 4.6 hours hitting the books. In 1996, U.S. eighth-graders spent an average of 2.6 hours a day watching television. French students averaged the least amount of time--1.5 hours--in front of the set, and Israeli students spent the most time, averaging 3.3 hours a day. Teachers in other countries receive more respect than they do in the United States. In Japan, it is considered a status symbol to have a teacher live in your neighborhood, and the government offers teachers low or no-interest mortgages on their homes. In Taiwan, teachers don't pay income tax, and Confucius' birthday is celebrated as Teachers Day, a national holiday on Sept. 29. Instead of respect, U.S. teachers--who undergo longer training than teachers in most other countries--find a morass of state certification laws that makes moving across state lines and getting a job difficult. A national system of teacher licensure would help U.S. teachers--who are nearly as mobile as U.S. students--find positions when they move. An education ethic permeates other countries, encouraging students to try hard and do well in school. In every country that delivers a world-class education, communities and parents exhibit a high regard for education, a healthy respect for teachers, and a holy regard for learning--all key ingredients in an "education ethic" that creates positive expectations for student learning. Unfortunately, the United States lags badly in this area. In world-class schools, the students are motivated and ready to learn. In the United States and Canada, too many students ignore educational opportunities and work instead at disrupting other students. These disruptive students must be removed, for safety's sake, and often are placed in alternative schools. Many other countries avoid this expense and distraction by having a strong education ethic that encourages students to try hard and do well in school. This education ethic begins with parents. The difference in attitude is probably most evident when parents are called in to discuss a problem at school. When Japanese school officials call parents to school because a child is disruptive, the parents typically ask, "What's wrong with my child?" In the United States, the parent often asks, "What's wrong with this school?" Historically, mothers in Japan and Taiwan have been intensely involved in their children's learning environment. Many Japanese mothers, for instance, attend their child's school and take notes when the child is ill. Both parents are expected to come to school to observe a child's work habits. Recent research shows the benefits of parental involvement in American schools. In their research for Running in Place: How American Families are Faring in a Changing Economy and an Individualistic Society, Nicholas Zill and Christine Nord asked parents in all 50 states if they attended parent meetings, school events, or volunteer activities. Their study defined "high-involvement" parents as those who participated in all three activities. "Moderate-involvement" parents participated in two of the three categories, and "low involvement" parents participated in one activity or none at all. Their findings: Students from low-involvement families were twice as likely to be in the lower half of their class as students from high-involvement families. Students from low-involvement families also experienced more discipline problems. These results don't surprise anyone who's spent time in a school. But they do explain, at least partially, why many American students lack motivation to do well in school. The United States has more splintered families than any other country we studied. In 1990, the U.S. divorce rate was about double the average of other countries in our study. (Indeed, some countries reported a divorce rate as low as 1 percent.) Single parents might do an outstanding job of preparing children for school, but two parents can devote twice as much time to supporting education. The education ethic of the parents is probably the key difference between a world-class school and one that's so-so. A University of Michigan study looked at Indo-Chinese refugee children who arrived with no knowledge of the language or culture in the 1980s. The children were scattered in different schools throughout the United States, and two years later, the children were earning world-class scores in science and mathematics and were on grade level in language. How could refugee students, who had so much catching up to do, score higher than other students at the same U.S. schools? The difference, of course, was in their education ethic. The refugee students worked harder, and their parents supported them, believing that education would lead to success in life. U.S. schools can--and do--deliver a world-class education, but students have to be willing to work at it. We understand that schools can't change cultural mores--and schools shouldn't be blamed for the inevitable results of dysfunctional parents and communities. But school leaders can try to instill an education ethic in new parents. You might start with programs that improve parenting skills, maybe by bringing the parents of preschool youngsters to school and teaching them how to prepare their preschoolers for the years ahead. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 24 2007, 02:28 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 OK, now we're to believe that the math failure in this country has more to do with lazy, unmotivated and unruly students with dysfunctional parents? This is unbelieveable. The only value in that article is the reference to the development of a national math standard. California has often been brought up as a state to model the standard by, since it has the most rigorous standards in the country. Interestingly, they kicked reform math out quite a while back after they saw their math scores drop dramatically. Hence, their new standards. This is a valuable piece from the article..."Other countries are examining each other's school systems and copying what works." Singapore leads the world in math, the singapore math series is highly regarded, LPS couldn't have even looked at it as a possibility? Included in the pilot? If you are looking for "what works" in other countries, notice that EM isn't used in the highest performing ones. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com c3hull Posted: Feb 24 2007, 02:33 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,422 Member No.: 17 Joined: 25-October 05 WOW! What a letter! Did anyone in LPS bother to research this program beyond the few pilot programs? I have an idea. How about someone go to the podium at a BOE meeting and request that the Admin. give the community information on potential programs they are considering or any further "Innovative Ideas" they are looking at. We have so many intelligent people that post on here who also really enjoy reading and researching just about anything. They may as well let us bring them as much information as we can BEFORE something is voted on by the BOE. How novel of an idea...LOL! -------------------- VOTE FOR CHANGE ON MAY 8TH; VOTE FOR: MANG, MCDONNELL, & FUTRELL cmic Posted: Feb 24 2007, 02:54 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 QUOTE (c3hull @ Feb 24 2007, 03:33 PM) WOW! What a letter! Did anyone in LPS bother to research this program beyond the few pilot programs? I have an idea. How about someone go to the podium at a BOE meeting and request that the Admin. give the community information on potential programs they are considering or any further "Innovative Ideas" they are looking at. We have so many intelligent people that post on here who also really enjoy reading and researching just about anything. They may as well let us bring them as much information as we can BEFORE something is voted on by the BOE. How novel of an idea...LOL! Hi C3! I think that is a nice idea. However, I wanted to share my 2 cents worth. I taught in a different district a few years ago and the school I was at had a speaker come in and talk about AIDS. Unfortunately, the school did not inform the parents or the teachers until it was upon us. Big mistake. A parent went on the news and put her daughter on the camera to tell what happened. She said she didn't want any thing about sex, AIDS, etc... taught to her child without her ability to view the program and know in advance. She was right, however, not even 2 weeks later we had a parent night for parents to come in and see what would be taught regarding sex, AIDS, etc. Out of my section only 1 parent came into view it and that parent did NOT come not set up another time to see it. In fact out of the whole school there were only about 4 parents that came. There was a lot of hot air beforehand but then when the opportunity presented itself, people did not come. That may be similar to the experiences the district has seen in the past, and even now from what I hear about the low attendance at Community Conversations when there is such a large amount of unhappy residents. I'm not defending LPS by any means, just throwing out my experiences. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! NFarquharson Posted: Feb 24 2007, 03:14 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 Regardless of particpation rates, the information should be made available to those parents that want to see it. As to the "Community Conversations" not being well attended, my theory is that a lot of people are just plain done talking to the current school board as it has proven completely ineffective. No one wants to talk to a wall. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! c3hull Posted: Feb 24 2007, 03:42 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,422 Member No.: 17 Joined: 25-October 05 QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 24 2007, 03:14 PM) Regardless of particpation rates, the information should be made available to those parents that want to see it. As to the "Community Conversations" not being well attended, my theory is that a lot of people are just plain done talking to the current school board as it has proven completely ineffective. No one wants to talk to a wall. You are exactly right about that sentiment felt throughout the community! To top that off, a few weeks ago at a BOE meeting Ms. Scheel basically announced a "scare tactic" to try to muzzle her constituents. She mentioned slander and libel and that citizens should be "careful" about what they say. -------------------- VOTE FOR CHANGE ON MAY 8TH; VOTE FOR: MANG, MCDONNELL, & FUTRELL livoniafootballmom Posted: Feb 24 2007, 04:34 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 157 Member No.: 431 Joined: 27-July 06 No I actually felt like the part regarding the fact that our Asian counterparts use "cram schools" was relevant. Plus the part that was highlighted in red as to the fact that most of their high school students are taking two and three math and or science courses for each of their 3 years of high school. Also the fact that dollars are not spent on extra curriculars as they are in the U.S. I never meant to imply that it was about lazy students and dysfunctional parents. I'm sorry if that's all you got out of that. This research was done by the same group quoted in someone elses post. Apparently, it matters which side of the fence you sit on as to which research is valid. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 24 2007, 05:14 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (livoniafootballmom @ Feb 24 2007, 04:34 PM) No I actually felt like the part regarding the fact that our Asian counterparts use "cram schools" was relevant. Plus the part that was highlighted in red as to the fact that most of their high school students are taking two and three math and or science courses for each of their 3 years of high school. Also the fact that dollars are not spent on extra curriculars as they are in the U.S. I never meant to imply that it was about lazy students and dysfunctional parents. I'm sorry if that's all you got out of that. This research was done by the same group quoted in someone elses post. Apparently, it matters which side of the fence you sit on as to which research is valid. "We understand that schools can't change cultural mores--and schools shouldn't be blamed for the inevitable results of dysfunctional parents and communities. But school leaders can try to instill an education ethic in new parents. You might start with programs that improve parenting skills, maybe by bringing the parents of preschool youngsters to school and teaching them how to prepare their preschoolers for the years ahead." That last paragraph kind of sums up what the latter half of the article focused on. That is what I was commenting on. I strongly believe that we should stop making excuses and trying to place blame back and forth for kids dismal math performance and begin to look at others who have superior performance and copy their methods. I understand that kids in asian countries are taking extra classes both in an out of school but that doesn't change the fact that the methods of instruction are also different. A student here could take 3 classes of EM a day and, I believe, still not meet the mastery level found in asian countries. It is the content of what is being taught. EM leaves out much of what makes the asian programs so successful-mastery of basic skills and replaces them with alternative algorithms. We could learn something from these countries. What is it about EM that leads you to believe that it is the right program, that it will help kids excel at higher math later on? What is it about the alternative algorithms that lead you to believe that they are superior to standard ones? Many researchers, teachers, parents and kids who have had direct experience with this program find it of little value. What have you read or experienced that would lead you to believe otherwise? -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com mikefromholland Posted: Feb 24 2007, 11:24 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 420 Member No.: 436 Joined: 2-August 06 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 24 2007, 01:16 PM) Just to clarify my ealier post, I did not mean to say that the efforts of the teachers involved in our pilot programs was a waste or that the time spent by the evaluation committee was a waste, or that the input of our teachers is not valuable. My opinion is quite the contrary. I have said before that the explanations directly from the teachers involved is not to be taken lightly, and I have greatly valued those that have come here to enlighten me. It's just that such information is really mostly anecdotal, for the reasons I've explained. It's fine with me if you have the attitude that you don't want to read cold scientific research and would rather hear what real people have to say. There are plenty around that aren't speaking very highly of EM. Same thing with the LI grade reconfiguration. We heard all kinds of cheerleading about Novi and the 5/6 consortium, but discussion of Holland or other districts where it had been a failure were avoided or dismissed. I will point out, and I am surprised that no "supporter" has done this yet, that the reconfiguration in Holland was not an duplicate of the grade levels in the LI reconfiguration, the way that the Novi configuration is. The current configuration in Holland, which reversed focus schools and partially brought back neighborhood schools, is closer to the LI configuration -- with the exception of the implementation of one K-8 school which serves about 22% of the children in that grade range. Having said that, I will also point out that from my view as an outsider, as my opinion, the experience in Holland is much more relevant to your situation in Livonia than the experience in Novi. STRICTLY MY OPINION. That is because the relevant question is not whether a K-4, 5-6 configuration can work. Obviously it can work, as it does in Novi and other communities. Perhaps those communities would be even better off with another configuration, as some research studies suggest, but that is beside the point. The relevant question is whether a change from neighborhood K-6 schools to a K-4, 5-6 configuration is what your community wants. By that, I mean a very broad consensus of the community. It may very well be that a majority of the community does support the LI. A survey in Holland during the 2nd year of focus schools indicated that a majority of elementary school families agreed with the statement "Focus schools are right for our family." But the system failed, from an economic and financial standpoint, because a significant minority of families could not accept it, and they chose to exercise other choices for their children's educations. A bare majority is not a broad consensus when those who are not part of the majority have fundamentally opposing ideas. In my opinion, that appears to be the situation that your community is facing now. And it is a situation that your community will need to resolve regardless of the outcome of the BOE elections in May. OK... sorry to go off topic ... but I did not want the Holland situation to be misstated ... back to discussing math ... livoniafootballmom Posted: Feb 25 2007, 09:56 AM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 157 Member No.: 431 Joined: 27-July 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 24 2007, 05:14 PM) QUOTE (livoniafootballmom @ Feb 24 2007, 04:34 PM) No I actually felt like the part regarding the fact that our Asian counterparts use "cram schools" was relevant. Plus the part that was highlighted in red as to the fact that most of their high school students are taking two and three math and or science courses for each of their 3 years of high school. Also the fact that dollars are not spent on extra curriculars as they are in the U.S. I never meant to imply that it was about lazy students and dysfunctional parents. I'm sorry if that's all you got out of that. This research was done by the same group quoted in someone elses post. Apparently, it matters which side of the fence you sit on as to which research is valid. "We understand that schools can't change cultural mores--and schools shouldn't be blamed for the inevitable results of dysfunctional parents and communities. But school leaders can try to instill an education ethic in new parents. You might start with programs that improve parenting skills, maybe by bringing the parents of preschool youngsters to school and teaching them how to prepare their preschoolers for the years ahead." That last paragraph kind of sums up what the latter half of the article focused on. That is what I was commenting on. I strongly believe that we should stop making excuses and trying to place blame back and forth for kids dismal math performance and begin to look at others who have superior performance and copy their methods. I understand that kids in asian countries are taking extra classes both in an out of school but that doesn't change the fact that the methods of instruction are also different. A student here could take 3 classes of EM a day and, I believe, still not meet the mastery level found in asian countries. It is the content of what is being taught. EM leaves out much of what makes the asian programs so successful-mastery of basic skills and replaces them with alternative algorithms. We could learn something from these countries. What is it about EM that leads you to believe that it is the right program, that it will help kids excel at higher math later on? What is it about the alternative algorithms that lead you to believe that they are superior to standard ones? Many researchers, teachers, parents and kids who have had direct experience with this program find it of little value. What have you read or experienced that would lead you to believe otherwise? Look at previous posts, anytime someone posts something positive about EM, they get ripped apart. Many positive things about EM have been posted. You just choose to ignore them and bash the program. NO program is perfect. Teachers make the program effective and I think Livonia teachers are that good! In regards to algorithims, believe it or not some kids find these alternative ways helpful. You don't force them on the kids, you provide as many options as you can in order to succeed. Just because you find a certain way confusing doesn't mean the kids find them confusing. Just because you did something a certain way growing up doesn't mean it's the best and only way. You obviously have a computer, bet you didn't have that growing up. Should we throw them away and not use them because we didn't have them when we were kids? I don't think so. This was written after speaking to a couple of friends who teach and use EM. How many districts are using your highly touted Singapore math? cmic Posted: Feb 25 2007, 10:10 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 I was doing a little bit of reading on Asian kids and schooling and I remembered in a class I took that I was told that Asian kids are under a lot more pressure and that they have a much higher suicide rate do to it. Here is an article that you can read if you want to at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_...public_of_China This is a paragraph from it. The article is an encyclopedia entry that explains the system... The suicide rate for students in the ROC is high and comparable to the rates in Japan. This is often attributed to the tremendous academic pressures faced by students. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! Elisa Posted: Feb 25 2007, 12:33 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 607 Member No.: 64 Joined: 31-October 05 QUOTE (livoniafootballmom @ Feb 25 2007, 09:56 AM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 24 2007, 05:14 PM) QUOTE (livoniafootballmom @ Feb 24 2007, 04:34 PM) No I actually felt like the part regarding the fact that our Asian counterparts use "cram schools" was relevant. Plus the part that was highlighted in red as to the fact that most of their high school students are taking two and three math and or science courses for each of their 3 years of high school. Also the fact that dollars are not spent on extra curriculars as they are in the U.S. I never meant to imply that it was about lazy students and dysfunctional parents. I'm sorry if that's all you got out of that. This research was done by the same group quoted in someone elses post. Apparently, it matters which side of the fence you sit on as to which research is valid. "We understand that schools can't change cultural mores--and schools shouldn't be blamed for the inevitable results of dysfunctional parents and communities. But school leaders can try to instill an education ethic in new parents. You might start with programs that improve parenting skills, maybe by bringing the parents of preschool youngsters to school and teaching them how to prepare their preschoolers for the years ahead." That last paragraph kind of sums up what the latter half of the article focused on. That is what I was commenting on. I strongly believe that we should stop making excuses and trying to place blame back and forth for kids dismal math performance and begin to look at others who have superior performance and copy their methods. I understand that kids in asian countries are taking extra classes both in an out of school but that doesn't change the fact that the methods of instruction are also different. A student here could take 3 classes of EM a day and, I believe, still not meet the mastery level found in asian countries. It is the content of what is being taught. EM leaves out much of what makes the asian programs so successful-mastery of basic skills and replaces them with alternative algorithms. We could learn something from these countries. What is it about EM that leads you to believe that it is the right program, that it will help kids excel at higher math later on? What is it about the alternative algorithms that lead you to believe that they are superior to standard ones? Many researchers, teachers, parents and kids who have had direct experience with this program find it of little value. What have you read or experienced that would lead you to believe otherwise? Look at previous posts, anytime someone posts something positive about EM, they get ripped apart. Many positive things about EM have been posted. You just choose to ignore them and bash the program. NO program is perfect. Teachers make the program effective and I think Livonia teachers are that good! In regards to algorithims, believe it or not some kids find these alternative ways helpful. You don't force them on the kids, you provide as many options as you can in order to succeed. Just because you find a certain way confusing doesn't mean the kids find them confusing. Just because you did something a certain way growing up doesn't mean it's the best and only way. You obviously have a computer, bet you didn't have that growing up. Should we throw them away and not use them because we didn't have them when we were kids? I don't think so. This was written after speaking to a couple of friends who teach and use EM. How many districts are using your highly touted Singapore math? Again, I feel the need to comment on these types of programs because I am involved first hand with them everyday with my 2 kids. I'll focus on my 3rd grader because her situation is closest to what you may experience in LPS when this program is implemented. A little background first. My daughter has always done well in math. In fact she tested in the 97th percentile last year when she was considered for Webster. She has also had a positive attitude toward math and school in general. When we began school here in IL we were immediately introduced to reform math. Homework is a nightly requirement. The assignments are very lengthy and tedious. The point of the assignments isn't always easily recognizable to her or even my husband who has a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering. Additionally, the work requires complete guidance by a parent. The program ranges from utterly simple "math sentences" to extremely complex, multi function story problems that will be accompanied by grids, graphs or arrays. Honestly, I couldn't imagine any child being able to start and complete these assignments. But the program highly encourages complete parental assistance as it does group work within the classroom. I worry that she will be unable to think and solve problems on her own in the future. The algorithm issue is extremely troublesome for us. I too have read the research, the explantions of the alternative problem solving methods but didn't fully understand the difficulties involved until we started to implement them. A lot of time is spent on these alternative methods over standard procedures. As a result she doesn't have a firm mastery of the basic facts and will need to attend tutoring this summer. You may not understand that the alternative problem solving methods of reform math, unlike traditonal math, are neither quick nor simple. There is much opportunity for error as they involve elaborate pictures and lenghty word explanations. They are cumbersome and actually aren't really applicable to everyday life. I couldn't imagine her using some of these methods to solve a simple money calculation issue at a store or similiar daily occurences. But that is why they later move to the calculator for those operations. The "spiraling" nature of the curriculum is also troublesome. They move through many topics in an unrelated fashion through the week. Mastery of any of them is not expected or gained. When she is confused with a particular topic she is encouraged to do her best and that she'll "get it" when they come back to it or "spiral around." Unfortunately, she and I think many others are only more confused and angry when they see the concept again. When the concept spirals back around it is in a different format, a different context so it really isn't very recognizable to them or even us sometimes. I have no problem embracing something new or alternative methods to attack problems. From a parent in the trenches with this everyday, I just do not see this working for my child. In 6 months time she has gone from a competent math student to a child that immensely dislikes the program and feels poorly about her inability to perform well within it. As far as teacher quality, her teacher is Master's educated, she is our building's "math coach." I feel she is just as competent and dedicated as any teacher I have encountered in LPS. She does her best, she supplements but the ultimately she must teach the curriculum regardless of her feelings about it's effectiveness. I do not believe that LPS has the corner on good teachers. There are awesome teachers everywhere. You may feel quite differently when you begin to have hands on experiene with this program. It has been a huge adjustment for all of us here. I'd love to find the positive in it, afterall we did choose this district, but currently I don't. ForMySons Posted: Feb 25 2007, 12:36 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 205 Member No.: 205 Joined: 8-December 05 I was speaking with some of my co-workers from India. They told me that there is an intense pressure to succeed in school. Instead of dance classes and basketball teams, the children go to additional academic classes in their free time. Despite that, I am under the impression that their math classes are more rigorous. Their children are solving multiple digit addition and subtraction problems by the end of first grade. ForMySons Posted: Feb 25 2007, 12:43 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 205 Member No.: 205 Joined: 8-December 05 QUOTE (Elisa @ Feb 25 2007, 12:33 PM) QUOTE (livoniafootballmom @ Feb 25 2007, 09:56 AM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 24 2007, 05:14 PM) QUOTE (livoniafootballmom @ Feb 24 2007, 04:34 PM) No I actually felt like the part regarding the fact that our Asian counterparts use "cram schools" was relevant. Plus the part that was highlighted in red as to the fact that most of their high school students are taking two and three math and or science courses for each of their 3 years of high school. Also the fact that dollars are not spent on extra curriculars as they are in the U.S. I never meant to imply that it was about lazy students and dysfunctional parents. I'm sorry if that's all you got out of that. This research was done by the same group quoted in someone elses post. Apparently, it matters which side of the fence you sit on as to which research is valid. "We understand that schools can't change cultural mores--and schools shouldn't be blamed for the inevitable results of dysfunctional parents and communities. But school leaders can try to instill an education ethic in new parents. You might start with programs that improve parenting skills, maybe by bringing the parents of preschool youngsters to school and teaching them how to prepare their preschoolers for the years ahead." That last paragraph kind of sums up what the latter half of the article focused on. That is what I was commenting on. I strongly believe that we should stop making excuses and trying to place blame back and forth for kids dismal math performance and begin to look at others who have superior performance and copy their methods. I understand that kids in asian countries are taking extra classes both in an out of school but that doesn't change the fact that the methods of instruction are also different. A student here could take 3 classes of EM a day and, I believe, still not meet the mastery level found in asian countries. It is the content of what is being taught. EM leaves out much of what makes the asian programs so successful-mastery of basic skills and replaces them with alternative algorithms. We could learn something from these countries. What is it about EM that leads you to believe that it is the right program, that it will help kids excel at higher math later on? What is it about the alternative algorithms that lead you to believe that they are superior to standard ones? Many researchers, teachers, parents and kids who have had direct experience with this program find it of little value. What have you read or experienced that would lead you to believe otherwise? Look at previous posts, anytime someone posts something positive about EM, they get ripped apart. Many positive things about EM have been posted. You just choose to ignore them and bash the program. NO program is perfect. Teachers make the program effective and I think Livonia teachers are that good! In regards to algorithims, believe it or not some kids find these alternative ways helpful. You don't force them on the kids, you provide as many options as you can in order to succeed. Just because you find a certain way confusing doesn't mean the kids find them confusing. Just because you did something a certain way growing up doesn't mean it's the best and only way. You obviously have a computer, bet you didn't have that growing up. Should we throw them away and not use them because we didn't have them when we were kids? I don't think so. This was written after speaking to a couple of friends who teach and use EM. How many districts are using your highly touted Singapore math? Again, I feel the need to comment on these types of programs because I am involved first hand with them everyday with my 2 kids. I'll focus on my 3rd grader because her situation is closest to what you may experience in LPS when this program is implemented. A little background first. My daughter has always done well in math. In fact she tested in the 97th percentile last year when she was considered for Webster. She has also had a positive attitude toward math and school in general. When we began school here in IL we were immediately introduced to reform math. Homework is a nightly requirement. The assignments are very lengthy and tedious. The point of the assignments isn't always easily recognizable to her or even my husband who has a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering. Additionally, the work requires complete guidance by a parent. The program ranges from utterly simple "math sentences" to extremely complex, multi function story problems that will be accompanied by grids, graphs or arrays. Honestly, I couldn't imagine any child being able to start and complete these assignments. But the program highly encourages complete parental assistance as it does group work within the classroom. I worry that she will be unable to think and solve problems on her own in the future. The algorithm issue is extremely troublesome for us. I too have read the research, the explantions of the alternative problem solving methods but didn't fully understand the difficulties involved until we started to implement them. A lot of time is spent on these alternative methods over standard procedures. As a result she doesn't have a firm mastery of the basic facts and will need to attend tutoring this summer. You may not understand that the alternative problem solving methods of reform math, unlike traditonal math, are neither quick nor simple. There is much opportunity for error as they involve elaborate pictures and lenghty word explanations. They are cumbersome and actually aren't really applicable to everyday life. I couldn't imagine her using some of these methods to solve a simple money calculation issue at a store or similiar daily occurences. But that is why they later move to the calculator for those operations. The "spiraling" nature of the curriculum is also troublesome. They move through many topics in an unrelated fashion through the week. Mastery of any of them is not expected or gained. When she is confused with a particular topic she is encouraged to do her best and that she'll "get it" when they come back to it or "spiral around." Unfortunately, she and I think many others are only more confused and angry when they see the concept again. When the concept spirals back around it is in a different format, a different context so it really isn't very recognizable to them or even us sometimes. I have no problem embracing something new or alternative methods to attack problems. From a parent in the trenches with this everyday, I just do not see this working for my child. In 6 months time she has gone from a competent math student to a child that immensely dislikes the program and feels poorly about her inability to perform well within it. As far as teacher quality, her teacher is Master's educated, she is our building's "math coach." I feel she is just as competent and dedicated as any techer I have encountered in LPS. She does her best, she supplements but the ultimately she must teach the curriculum regardless of her feelings about it's effectiveness. I do not believe that LPS has the corner on good teachers. There are awesome teachers everywhere. You may feel quite differently when you begin to have hands on experiene with this program. It has been a huge adjustment for all of us here. I'd love to find the positive in it, afterall we did choose this district, but currently I don't. Elisa, Based on your note, it sounds like even if a parent wanted to supplement the math program on their own, there would be little time to do so. Correct? Elisa Posted: Feb 25 2007, 12:48 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 607 Member No.: 64 Joined: 31-October 05 We were just talking about that today! We are trying to decide if we will supplement at home with Singapre or go to Kumon. Honestly, we spend so much time on this homework that I fear my daughter would be absolutely overwhelmed with supplemental work on top of that but really find it necessary. cmic Posted: Feb 25 2007, 01:01 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 To be honest, I don't have the time or energy to spend hours supporting my kids at home with that kind of math program. I am already spending countless hours a night helping all 3 of my kids with math, transporting them to dance or gymnastics and trying to feed and bathe them each night. Fortunately my children get off school at 3:00 and my husband can start some of it with them, but for the 4:00 schools, I don't know how you do it. That extra hour means everything to me. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! cmic Posted: Feb 25 2007, 01:07 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 Singapore Math Pros and Cons Please view this site. It is very interesting, especially the pro's and con's section. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! NFarquharson Posted: Feb 25 2007, 01:10 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 Elisa: Your story really scares me! As the mother of a 2nd grader who does very well in math and absolutely loves it, I can only say that I will go ballistic if she has the same experience that you are having in 3rd grade with this reform math. To go from loving and excelling in math to nightly torture sessions is disgusting to me, particularly for a child that tested so high. I can only hope that somehow this is implemented differently at LPS, since the decision has already been made. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! NFarquharson Posted: Feb 25 2007, 01:12 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (cmic @ Feb 25 2007, 01:01 PM) To be honest, I don't have the time or energy to spend hours supporting my kids at home with that kind of math program. I am already spending countless hours a night helping all 3 of my kids with math, transporting them to dance or gymnastics and trying to feed and bathe them each night. Fortunately my children get off school at 3:00 and my husband can start some of it with them, but for the 4:00 schools, I don't know how you do it. That extra hour means everything to me. Then there are those of us that don't get home until closer to 6pm. It is challenging and I agree with you 100% I am not prepared to get a second unpaid job as a math teacher! -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! livoniamom Posted: Feb 25 2007, 01:50 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 322 Member No.: 126 Joined: 15-November 05 QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 01:10 PM) Elisa: Your story really scares me! As the mother of a 2nd grader who does very well in math and absolutely loves it, I can only say that I will go ballistic if she has the same experience that you are having in 3rd grade with this reform math. To go from loving and excelling in math to nightly torture sessions is disgusting to me, particularly for a child that tested so high. I can only hope that somehow this is implemented differently at LPS, since the decision has already been made. Didn't LPS pilot EM in at least one 3rd or 4th grade class? I am sure the parents of those students could speak to this concern. It appeared from the 1st grade parents that spoke at the meeting that the homework was not an issue for them. mouse2 Posted: Feb 25 2007, 04:15 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 25 2007, 01:50 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 01:10 PM) Elisa: Your story really scares me! As the mother of a 2nd grader who does very well in math and absolutely loves it, I can only say that I will go ballistic if she has the same experience that you are having in 3rd grade with this reform math. To go from loving and excelling in math to nightly torture sessions is disgusting to me, particularly for a child that tested so high. I can only hope that somehow this is implemented differently at LPS, since the decision has already been made. Didn't LPS pilot EM in at least one 3rd or 4th grade class? I am sure the parents of those students could speak to this concern. It appeared from the 1st grade parents that spoke at the meeting that the homework was not an issue for them. It was a 4th grade class. We had homework every night and let me tell you I could Not understand it ! We could show my child how do do it the "old " way and my son could understand it and we went from there. Oh the FACT that his teacher was on this so called panel to make this choice was not much help either. There were many parents who ask for help with this math to say we got none would be a understatement. I went from a kid who loved math to a kid who hated math Also the few parents who spoke at the meeting means zip ! What would the other 20 parents say ? Oh by the way my son meap score went DOWN IN MATH THIS YEAR FOR THE FIRST TIME. That happens to say alot to me. I would also like to say someday some of you are going to wake up to the fact that all is not " good " with LPS ! Morrocomole Posted: Feb 25 2007, 04:37 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 232 Member No.: 413 Joined: 6-June 06 So what you are confirming is that your son was part of the pilot for the EM math program last year and his MEAPS went down this year. I believe this validates a large amount of the supporting data regarding the reason other districts have abandoned this program and also validates the conclusions that this years MEAPS reflect last years curriculum. SCARY Just plain SCARY -------------------- Vote for Citizens and Customers, not Incumbents and Friends Delynn Posted: Feb 25 2007, 04:44 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 110 Member No.: 438 Joined: 5-August 06 QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 04:15 PM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 25 2007, 01:50 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 01:10 PM) Elisa: Your story really scares me! As the mother of a 2nd grader who does very well in math and absolutely loves it, I can only say that I will go ballistic if she has the same experience that you are having in 3rd grade with this reform math. To go from loving and excelling in math to nightly torture sessions is disgusting to me, particularly for a child that tested so high. I can only hope that somehow this is implemented differently at LPS, since the decision has already been made. Didn't LPS pilot EM in at least one 3rd or 4th grade class? I am sure the parents of those students could speak to this concern. It appeared from the 1st grade parents that spoke at the meeting that the homework was not an issue for them. It was a 4th grade class. We had homework every night and let me tell you I could Not understand it ! We could show my child how do do it the "old " way and my son could understand it and we went from there. Oh the FACT that his teacher was on this so called panel to make this choice was not much help either. There were many parents who ask for help with this math to say we got none would be a understatement. I went from a kid who loved math to a kid who hated math Also the few parents who spoke at the meeting means zip ! What would the other 20 parents say ? Oh by the way my son meap score went DOWN IN MATH THIS YEAR FOR THE FIRST TIME. That happens to say alot to me. I would also like to say someday some of you are going to wake up to the fact that all is not " good " with LPS ! I wish you, or someone with the same experience, would have spoken up loudly at a BOE meeting.....it might have fallen on their deaf ears, but maybe those voting in May would have heard..... mouse2 Posted: Feb 25 2007, 05:01 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (Delynn @ Feb 25 2007, 04:44 PM) QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 04:15 PM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 25 2007, 01:50 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 01:10 PM) Elisa: Your story really scares me! As the mother of a 2nd grader who does very well in math and absolutely loves it, I can only say that I will go ballistic if she has the same experience that you are having in 3rd grade with this reform math. To go from loving and excelling in math to nightly torture sessions is disgusting to me, particularly for a child that tested so high. I can only hope that somehow this is implemented differently at LPS, since the decision has already been made. Didn't LPS pilot EM in at least one 3rd or 4th grade class? I am sure the parents of those students could speak to this concern. It appeared from the 1st grade parents that spoke at the meeting that the homework was not an issue for them. It was a 4th grade class. We had homework every night and let me tell you I could Not understand it ! We could show my child how do do it the "old " way and my son could understand it and we went from there. Oh the FACT that his teacher was on this so called panel to make this choice was not much help either. There were many parents who ask for help with this math to say we got none would be a understatement. I went from a kid who loved math to a kid who hated math Also the few parents who spoke at the meeting means zip ! What would the other 20 parents say ? Oh by the way my son meap score went DOWN IN MATH THIS YEAR FOR THE FIRST TIME. That happens to say alot to me. I would also like to say someday some of you are going to wake up to the fact that all is not " good " with LPS ! I wish you, or someone with the same experience, would have spoken up loudly at a BOE meeting.....it might have fallen on their deaf ears, but maybe those voting in May would have heard..... I sent each board member a e-mail. I knew from their answers to it was a rubberstamp done deal. Talking to those people is like talking to a wall The kids and there parents are going to be paying a very high price with this so called math. I SO WISH IT WAS MAY mouse2 Posted: Feb 25 2007, 05:13 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (Morrocomole @ Feb 25 2007, 04:37 PM) So what you are confirming is that your son was part of the pilot for the EM math program last year and his MEAPS went down this year. I believe this validates a large amount of the supporting data regarding the reason other districts have abandoned this program and also validates the conclusions that this years MEAPS reflect last years curriculum. SCARY Just plain SCARY Yes my child was part of pilot ............ Would have been nice if they would have inform us first but we all know they like to keep many secrets from parents. I would like to know what they are going to do when a teacher is out sick ? The sub. my child had could not teach it ! My kid said that was his best week of school last year. |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 08:33 PM Post #15 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 13 new school mom Posted: Feb 25 2007, 05:31 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 05:13 PM) QUOTE (Morrocomole @ Feb 25 2007, 04:37 PM) So what you are confirming is that your son was part of the pilot for the EM math program last year and his MEAPS went down this year. I believe this validates a large amount of the supporting data regarding the reason other districts have abandoned this program and also validates the conclusions that this years MEAPS reflect last years curriculum. SCARY Just plain SCARY Yes my child was part of pilot ............ Would have been nice if they would have inform us first but we all know they like to keep many secrets from parents. I would like to know what they are going to do when a teacher is out sick ? The sub. my child had could not teach it ! My kid said that was his best week of school last year. It certainly seems this EM program gets more difficult as the kids get older, but I wonder if you start with it in K-1 if you "get it" better in 3-4th?? Just wondering?? As far as being informed--we were informed on the first day of school we were part of the pilot program, I have felt informed throughout the process........could it be that different teachers chose different modes of communication with parents--and that is why you felt uninformed?? Also, from what I know about EM, there is alot of teacher prep work involved--so, how well the teacher teaches it, and how well the students learn it will be a direct reflection on teacher prep, I think--therefore, I hope all teachers in this district realize this and prepare well before starting to teach this in september....from what I understand the information and texts are to be given to them in April to begin prep for september---I hope my son gets a second grade teacher with as much committment as his current first grade teacher!! We have not had problems with subs teaching either, the homework still came home daily, and we had no problems doing it. I don't know what the 3-4th cirriculum is like, but the first grade homework is a breeze for my child, I think once or twice a story problem was confusing, but we broke it down and had the work done in 7-8min instead of 5---so far no big deal for us, and I love the problem solving skills he is attaining. He is also having the 100 problem timed addition tests--and he is scoring close to 100% on them--he is learning math well so far..........I hope it continues! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 25 2007, 05:55 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 From Pennsylvania...Dropping EM after 12 years. It's official - unanimously approved by the board on Wednesday night. Meeting minutes will be available in a week or so on the web at http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/OperationsOffice/BoardMinutes.asp. In the meantime, if you're interested you can watch the meeting on the web - http://ppstv.pps.k12.pa.us/mediasite/viewe...?&mode=NoResize Although the legislative review discussion (also at that link) is perhaps the more interesting of the two meetings - the discussion of the pilot starts at about the 60th minute. Our interim superintendent indicated that one of the problems with EM was that it took parents out of the equation because they couldn't assist their children with the EM homework. Teachers thought the Harcourt curriculum was much more parent-friendly. Some other quotes from the broadcast: Board member Mark Brentley: "These schools have been suffering for too long. Something needs to be done." Interim superintendent Dr. Andy King: "We've looked at Everyday Math for 12 years and we know with certainty that it doesn't meet the needs of all students." "You say we can't just throw information out there. Another thing we can't do - and I won't do - is continue to do the same thing if it's not meeting the needs of all students." "Philosophy has shifted; it used to be top-down and teachers and principals dare not speak out against it or challenge it. I think practitioners are experts in the field and can offer recommendations on what works for their students." "Teachers are frustrated when the administration doesn't provide them with the tools and resources to address the needs of all their students." An interim superintendent is putting this initiative forward. The board plans to hire a permanent superintendent sometime this summer. It will be interesting to see if the new superintendent supports the pilot. Many schools want to participate; building administrators are desperate for something to help their children catch up - (they say) "let's try something else." |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 08:36 PM Post #16 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 14 NFarquharson Posted: Feb 25 2007, 06:41 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 05:31 PM) It certainly seems this EM program gets more difficult as the kids get older, but I wonder if you start with it in K-1 if you "get it" better in 3-4th?? Just wondering?? Since so many children won't have that luxury over the next few years, it doesn't really matter. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! new school mom Posted: Feb 25 2007, 07:11 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 06:41 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 05:31 PM) It certainly seems this EM program gets more difficult as the kids get older, but I wonder if you start with it in K-1 if you "get it" better in 3-4th?? Just wondering?? Since so many children won't have that luxury over the next few years, it doesn't really matter. Many won't, but let's not forget about the many that will---remember everyone is affected in different ways----- NFarquharson Posted: Feb 25 2007, 07:41 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 07:11 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 06:41 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 05:31 PM) It certainly seems this EM program gets more difficult as the kids get older, but I wonder if you start with it in K-1 if you "get it" better in 3-4th?? Just wondering?? Since so many children won't have that luxury over the next few years, it doesn't really matter. Many won't, but let's not forget about the many that will---remember everyone is affected in different ways----- Great, but I am not willing to sacrifice the ones that will not have that luxury, possibly cauing them to have significant problems with math or learn to dislike math, so that the kids after them will have a new program (that may not work for them either.) There are already many children who have had to endure a lot of change due to the LI. There are some that will have up to 5 transitions to new schools because some people (most often those whose kids have not been impacted) think that will somehow be better for the future. It is not right to hit those same kids over and over again. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! mouse2 Posted: Feb 25 2007, 07:56 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 07:11 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 06:41 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 05:31 PM) It certainly seems this EM program gets more difficult as the kids get older, but I wonder if you start with it in K-1 if you "get it" better in 3-4th?? Just wondering?? Since so many children won't have that luxury over the next few years, it doesn't really matter. Many won't, but let's not forget about the many that will---remember everyone is affected in different ways----- So it is tuff luck for the "big kids " once again. Wow nice to know once again that as long as it does not hurt your child it's " A " ok with you. Think about what you are saying because someday it might be your child who comes home to say I HATE MATH !!!! Life does have a way to come back and bite you when you least expect it ........................... new school mom Posted: Feb 25 2007, 08:09 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 07:56 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 07:11 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 06:41 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 05:31 PM) It certainly seems this EM program gets more difficult as the kids get older, but I wonder if you start with it in K-1 if you "get it" better in 3-4th?? Just wondering?? Since so many children won't have that luxury over the next few years, it doesn't really matter. Many won't, but let's not forget about the many that will---remember everyone is affected in different ways----- So it is tuff luck for the "big kids " once again. Wow nice to know once again that as long as it does not hurt your child it's " A " ok with you. Think about what you are saying because someday it might be your child who comes home to say I HATE MATH !!!! Life does have a way to come back and bite you when you least expect it ........................... I never said tuff luck for the big kids.......your anger is unreal---I didn't say it didn't affect my child-he is in a piolt-he is the"guinea pig"you all loving refer to these kids as...he is VERY affected. and if it is my child coming home and saying I hate math--my husband and I will work with him, like we have in other "life" areas that he hates to get through it, I am confident that as a parent, I can do that.....would I prefer it didn't happen--yes absolutely......but remember, you kids take cues from you, they learn from your behaviors........again, I will ask, if you are so dissatified with EM why did you not speak out at the board meeting??? sending emails to the BOE is one thing, but speaking out in front of the community brings the issue out in the open---if you don't like something change it and stop beating this dead horse!!! loyaltolivonia Posted: Feb 25 2007, 08:30 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 Yes, why don't you try and change it? We all see how well that worked with the LI!!! We've been trying to 'change it' for a year and a half and it falls on deaf ears. Someone has spoken out against the LI at almost every single board meeting since the plan was rolled out. What makes you think they will 'listen' now about EM? mouse2 Posted: Feb 25 2007, 08:47 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 08:09 PM) QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 07:56 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 07:11 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 06:41 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 05:31 PM) It certainly seems this EM program gets more difficult as the kids get older, but I wonder if you start with it in K-1 if you "get it" better in 3-4th?? Just wondering?? Since so many children won't have that luxury over the next few years, it doesn't really matter. Many won't, but let's not forget about the many that will---remember everyone is affected in different ways----- So it is tuff luck for the "big kids " once again. Wow nice to know once again that as long as it does not hurt your child it's " A " ok with you. Think about what you are saying because someday it might be your child who comes home to say I HATE MATH !!!! Life does have a way to come back and bite you when you least expect it ........................... I never said tuff luck for the big kids.......your anger is unreal---I didn't say it didn't affect my child-he is in a piolt-he is the"guinea pig"you all loving refer to these kids as...he is VERY affected. and if it is my child coming home and saying I hate math--my husband and I will work with him, like we have in other "life" areas that he hates to get through it, I am confident that as a parent, I can do that.....would I prefer it didn't happen--yes absolutely......but remember, you kids take cues from you, they learn from your behaviors........again, I will ask, if you are so dissatified with EM why did you not speak out at the board meeting??? sending emails to the BOE is one thing, but speaking out in front of the community brings the issue out in the open---if you don't like something change it and stop beating this dead horse!!! I don't feel the anger you want to throw at me. I know what kind of parent I am. I have put one child all the way thru LPS AND college and law school. That child is now a Mother to three of the best grandkids one could ask for. I am sick of this little game that some here like to play ! Your quote " BUT REMEMBER YOUR KIDS TAKE CUES FROM YOU " is a bunch of HOGWASH ! I have learn how to do things in my own way when it's comes to LPS AND have done so. I WILL STAND UP AND BEAT ANY DEAD HORSE I FEEL THE NEED TO. Now you need take your anger at me for not going along with your way of thinking and put it away. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 25 2007, 08:49 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 "again, I will ask, if you are so dissatified with EM why did you not speak out at the board meeting??? sending emails to the BOE is one thing, but speaking out in front of the community brings the issue out in the open--" newschoolmom, I think that many people wrote the BOE concerning EM. I took that route and also received no response at all. A letter, a call or an email should carry the same weight as appearing live at a meeting. You're saying that only concerns that are brought before the camera should be considered valid?? Not everyone is comfortable with that avenue. But their concerns should be taken just as seriously. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com loyaltolivonia Posted: Feb 25 2007, 08:57 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 08:09 PM) ---if you don't like something change it and stop beating this dead horse!!! And, BTW, this is one horse I am so glad got beat senseless because it has helped me to REALLY understand what is coming up for my current 3rd grader. To have someone present the program is fine, but you don't get to see (up close and personal) what it is really like. Now we know what we have to do to supplement his learning over the summer. Which is sad in itself because I've always viewed summer as a time to relax and have fun with the kids, not do math drills and flash cards just so he doesn't fall behind and become frustrated livoniamom Posted: Feb 25 2007, 09:25 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 322 Member No.: 126 Joined: 15-November 05 QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 05:01 PM) QUOTE (Delynn @ Feb 25 2007, 04:44 PM) QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 04:15 PM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 25 2007, 01:50 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 01:10 PM) Elisa: Your story really scares me! As the mother of a 2nd grader who does very well in math and absolutely loves it, I can only say that I will go ballistic if she has the same experience that you are having in 3rd grade with this reform math. To go from loving and excelling in math to nightly torture sessions is disgusting to me, particularly for a child that tested so high. I can only hope that somehow this is implemented differently at LPS, since the decision has already been made. Didn't LPS pilot EM in at least one 3rd or 4th grade class? I am sure the parents of those students could speak to this concern. It appeared from the 1st grade parents that spoke at the meeting that the homework was not an issue for them. It was a 4th grade class. We had homework every night and let me tell you I could Not understand it ! We could show my child how do do it the "old " way and my son could understand it and we went from there. Oh the FACT that his teacher was on this so called panel to make this choice was not much help either. There were many parents who ask for help with this math to say we got none would be a understatement. I went from a kid who loved math to a kid who hated math Also the few parents who spoke at the meeting means zip ! What would the other 20 parents say ? Oh by the way my son meap score went DOWN IN MATH THIS YEAR FOR THE FIRST TIME. That happens to say alot to me. I would also like to say someday some of you are going to wake up to the fact that all is not " good " with LPS ! I wish you, or someone with the same experience, would have spoken up loudly at a BOE meeting.....it might have fallen on their deaf ears, but maybe those voting in May would have heard..... I sent each board member a e-mail. I knew from their answers to it was a rubberstamp done deal. Talking to those people is like talking to a wall The kids and there parents are going to be paying a very high price with this so called math. I SO WISH IT WAS MAY I am curious if your child's teacher surveyed you about the program as they did in the 1st grade pilot. Were you asked for you feedback by the teacher? Also curious, why do you suppose your teacher recommended the program (assuming she/he did) if it did not work well in her classroom? The first grade teacher that spoke at the meeting (and recommended the program) seemed to genuinely believe in it and have success with it. c3hull Posted: Feb 25 2007, 10:01 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,422 Member No.: 17 Joined: 25-October 05 At a birthday party today a St. Mike's mom told me she wrote a lengthy letter last year to Sister Carolyn the principal. She had heard there was talk of a review process going on with the current math program. She wrote a letter begging NOT to even look at EM or Chicago Math. She had nieces and nephews who were all on the gifted side and struggled with EM and were very behind when they moved to the LPS district 5 years ago. Another parent said her oldest son used EM in a district I never heard of(I didn't want to interupt her and didn't ask for her to repeat it). He now goes to Brother Rice and is doing fine in math. But, he was around 1 year behind in math when he came to St. Mike's as a 5th grader and needed intensive tutoring to catch up. This really sounds like a terrible program for everyone involved: kids, parents, and teachers. The first parent I mentioned also told me the same story as my friend in Troy. Parents were constantly on the phone trying to see if anyone had figured out that night's homework. -------------------- VOTE FOR CHANGE ON MAY 8TH; VOTE FOR: MANG, MCDONNELL, & FUTRELL mouse2 Posted: Feb 25 2007, 10:14 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 25 2007, 09:25 PM) QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 05:01 PM) QUOTE (Delynn @ Feb 25 2007, 04:44 PM) QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 04:15 PM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 25 2007, 01:50 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 25 2007, 01:10 PM) Elisa: Your story really scares me! As the mother of a 2nd grader who does very well in math and absolutely loves it, I can only say that I will go ballistic if she has the same experience that you are having in 3rd grade with this reform math. To go from loving and excelling in math to nightly torture sessions is disgusting to me, particularly for a child that tested so high. I can only hope that somehow this is implemented differently at LPS, since the decision has already been made. Didn't LPS pilot EM in at least one 3rd or 4th grade class? I am sure the parents of those students could speak to this concern. It appeared from the 1st grade parents that spoke at the meeting that the homework was not an issue for them. It was a 4th grade class. We had homework every night and let me tell you I could Not understand it ! We could show my child how do do it the "old " way and my son could understand it and we went from there. Oh the FACT that his teacher was on this so called panel to make this choice was not much help either. There were many parents who ask for help with this math to say we got none would be a understatement. I went from a kid who loved math to a kid who hated math Also the few parents who spoke at the meeting means zip ! What would the other 20 parents say ? Oh by the way my son meap score went DOWN IN MATH THIS YEAR FOR THE FIRST TIME. That happens to say alot to me. I would also like to say someday some of you are going to wake up to the fact that all is not " good " with LPS ! I wish you, or someone with the same experience, would have spoken up loudly at a BOE meeting.....it might have fallen on their deaf ears, but maybe those voting in May would have heard..... I sent each board member a e-mail. I knew from their answers to it was a rubberstamp done deal. Talking to those people is like talking to a wall The kids and there parents are going to be paying a very high price with this so called math. I SO WISH IT WAS MAY I am curious if your child's teacher surveyed you about the program as they did in the 1st grade pilot. Were you asked for you feedback by the teacher? Also curious, why do you suppose your teacher recommended the program (assuming she/he did) if it did not work well in her classroom? The first grade teacher that spoke at the meeting (and recommended the program) seemed to genuinely believe in it and have success with it. No the teacher did not do any kind of survey with any parent that I know of. There were seven parents who had a meeting with the teacher and as we were told AND I have it on tape (yes you learn to do this because some will lie about what was said) This is whe wave of the future. We asked the teacher to help us with the math but she said she did not have the time. We also have it on tape that she had to go along with the head of the math dept. head. new school mom Posted: Feb 26 2007, 07:37 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 10:14 PM) [No the teacher did not do any kind of survey with any parent that I know of. There were seven parents who had a meeting with the teacher and as we were told AND I have it on tape (yes you learn to do this because some will lie about what was said) This is whe wave of the future. We asked the teacher to help us with the math but she said she did not have the time. We also have it on tape that she had to go along with the head of the math dept. head. I feel bad that you did not have the positive experience with your teacher that we did....we were well informed, and surveyed. Also, did you get the parent letter at the beginning of each unit, I thought it was helpful to know what is coming, and it gave you the answers to all the homework assisgnments?? Maybe the problem is with the way the teacher taught-or didn't teach the math?? I surely hope all teachers will be on board and fully committed to this change in order to maximally benefit our kids!! BoaterDan Posted: Feb 26 2007, 08:12 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 26 2007, 07:37 AM) QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 25 2007, 10:14 PM) [No the teacher did not do any kind of survey with any parent that I know of. There were seven parents who had a meeting with the teacher and as we were told AND I have it on tape (yes you learn to do this because some will lie about what was said) This is whe wave of the future. We asked the teacher to help us with the math but she said she did not have the time. We also have it on tape that she had to go along with the head of the math dept. head. I feel bad that you did not have the positive experience with your teacher that we did....we were well informed, and surveyed. Also, did you get the parent letter at the beginning of each unit, I thought it was helpful to know what is coming, and it gave you the answers to all the homework assisgnments?? Maybe the problem is with the way the teacher taught-or didn't teach the math?? I surely hope all teachers will be on board and fully committed to this change in order to maximally benefit our kids!! I'm afraid all you're doing is making me increasingly uneasy about this program. One of the major points the EM proponents wanted to come through loud and clear in the presentation was how wonderful it was in the way it involved parents. Now we have eyewitness accounts that even in the pilot program, in which the delivery of the program surely got way more attention and scrutiny than it will five years from now, this was absolutely not the case. It was also clear in the presentation that there will be significant training necessary of the staff. (I believe the publisher "threw that in"??) Now we have eyewitness accounts that teachers apparently aren't going to follow the program consistently (which could be a good thing or a horrible thing). And we have the real issue of a teacher needing to be out for a week and the substitute being utterly clueless experienced first-hand. Ok, those of you that wanted to dismiss the "research" and look at our specific experience in Livonia, here's the dark side right here in our district that we didn't see at the cheerleading exposition...er, I mean board presentation. The sum total of public discussion by the board on the potential risks of this program was King saying they'd talked about it in private and he still thinks it's a good program. Utterly disgusting. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 26 2007, 10:32 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 26 2007, 07:37 AM) Also, did you get the parent letter at the beginning of each unit, I thought it was helpful to know what is coming, and it gave you the answers to all the homework assisgnments?? I think that this statement says a lot. An answer key to 1st grade homework? Maybe you would have felt a little more like mouse2 without those answers? -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com 2tots Posted: Feb 26 2007, 11:22 AM Principal Group: Member Posts: 301 Member No.: 359 Joined: 22-March 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 25 2007, 08:09 PM) again, I will ask, if you are so dissatified with EM why did you not speak out at the board meeting??? sending emails to the BOE is one thing, but speaking out in front of the community brings the issue out in the open---if you don't like something change it and stop beating this dead horse!!! Think about what you said. It was presented at one board meeting and voted on at the next. WHEN WERE WE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR FEELINGS ABOUT THIS PROGRAM??????? That is the problem with this administration. THEY DON'T WANT OUR INPUT plain and simple. mouse2 Posted: Feb 26 2007, 12:05 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 26 2007, 10:32 AM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 26 2007, 07:37 AM) Also, did you get the parent letter at the beginning of each unit, I thought it was helpful to know what is coming, and it gave you the answers to all the homework assisgnments?? I think that this statement says a lot. An answer key to 1st grade homework? Maybe you would have felt a little more like mouse2 without those answers? I so agree with you. That fact is we did not get any letter at the beginning of the unit and there was not a answer key either. We did not have a problem with coming up with the right answer. The problem was we got it wrong because we as our sons parents could only teach him " THE OLD FASHION WAY " Which by the way has about ten less steps to it. There is going to be problems because not every teacher is going to be up to this. It's more work for them and for the parents ! livoniamom Posted: Feb 26 2007, 12:52 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 322 Member No.: 126 Joined: 15-November 05 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 26 2007, 08:12 AM) I'm afraid all you're doing is making me increasingly uneasy about this program. One of the major points the EM proponents wanted to come through loud and clear in the presentation was how wonderful it was in the way it involved parents. Now we have eyewitness accounts that even in the pilot program, in which the delivery of the program surely got way more attention and scrutiny than it will five years from now, this was absolutely not the case. It was also clear in the presentation that there will be significant training necessary of the staff. (I believe the publisher "threw that in"??) Now we have eyewitness accounts that teachers apparently aren't going to follow the program consistently (which could be a good thing or a horrible thing). And we have the real issue of a teacher needing to be out for a week and the substitute being utterly clueless experienced first-hand. Ok, those of you that wanted to dismiss the "research" and look at our specific experience in Livonia, here's the dark side right here in our district that we didn't see at the cheerleading exposition...er, I mean board presentation. The sum total of public discussion by the board on the potential risks of this program was King saying they'd talked about it in private and he still thinks it's a good program. Utterly disgusting. It was good to hear both the good and bad from Livonia parents who have actually experienced the program. You can always find "studies" and articles to support your cause on the internet -- I can just as easily find articles that very positive about Everyday Math as you can negative. Just because you read something on the internet does not mean it is gospel. For instance I searched Everyday Math in Yahoo Answers -- half the replies are we use it and our test scores have improved -- the other half of the replies are negative. Who do you believe? I will agree that the presentation was light on any downside of the program. It is interesting to me that Mouse2's class had such a negative experience but the program was still recommended. I get the impression that the teacher was not really invested in seeing it succeed? I think we can all agree that teacher training, preparedness and support for students and parents is necessary for this program to succeed. If this does not happen and our children struggle, I guarentee the BOE will hear about it in the fall. If this program is a success however, we may enjoy an increase in test scores and our children may learn to be critical thinkers. 4kids Posted: Feb 26 2007, 01:22 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 526 Member No.: 295 Joined: 29-January 06 Boy, this keeps on getting worse, I am also getting scared about thie new program Boater Dan. My son is an average student but can be very hard to teach things to if he doesn't understand it. He"s doing pretty good in math right now. I'm wondering if I should pull him for third grade and send him to private school with his sister, instead of waiting for fifth grade. I will have to give this a lot of thought, I believe it's only $1,000 more to send a second child. Plus, if I get my youngest two in fulltime kindergarden, it will lesson a third school. I will be totally out of LPS! Who would of thought. I grew up here and wanted the same for my kids, but I guess things change and we can't always control that, but we certainly can find different alternatives. And of course vote for MANG, McDONNELL, and FUTRELL in MAY!!! -------------------- VOTE McDONNELL, MANG and FUTRELL MAY 8TH Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 26 2007, 01:44 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 12:52 PM) QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 26 2007, 08:12 AM) I'm afraid all you're doing is making me increasingly uneasy about this program. One of the major points the EM proponents wanted to come through loud and clear in the presentation was how wonderful it was in the way it involved parents. Now we have eyewitness accounts that even in the pilot program, in which the delivery of the program surely got way more attention and scrutiny than it will five years from now, this was absolutely not the case. It was also clear in the presentation that there will be significant training necessary of the staff. (I believe the publisher "threw that in"??) Now we have eyewitness accounts that teachers apparently aren't going to follow the program consistently (which could be a good thing or a horrible thing). And we have the real issue of a teacher needing to be out for a week and the substitute being utterly clueless experienced first-hand. Ok, those of you that wanted to dismiss the "research" and look at our specific experience in Livonia, here's the dark side right here in our district that we didn't see at the cheerleading exposition...er, I mean board presentation. The sum total of public discussion by the board on the potential risks of this program was King saying they'd talked about it in private and he still thinks it's a good program. Utterly disgusting. It was good to hear both the good and bad from Livonia parents who have actually experienced the program. You can always find "studies" and articles to support your cause on the internet -- I can just as easily find articles that very positive about Everyday Math as you can negative. Just because you read something on the internet does not mean it is gospel. For instance I searched Everyday Math in Yahoo Answers -- half the replies are we use it and our test scores have improved -- the other half of the replies are negative. Who do you believe? I will agree that the presentation was light on any downside of the program. It is interesting to me that Mouse2's class had such a negative experience but the program was still recommended. I get the impression that the teacher was not really invested in seeing it succeed? I think we can all agree that teacher training, preparedness and support for students and parents is necessary for this program to succeed. If this does not happen and our children struggle, I guarentee the BOE will hear about it in the fall. If this program is a success however, we may enjoy an increase in test scores and our children may learn to be critical thinkers. If it's so easy to find the studies supporting your position, then please post it. -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! new school mom Posted: Feb 26 2007, 02:09 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 26 2007, 12:05 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 26 2007, 10:32 AM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 26 2007, 07:37 AM) Also, did you get the parent letter at the beginning of each unit, I thought it was helpful to know what is coming, and it gave you the answers to all the homework assisgnments?? I think that this statement says a lot. An answer key to 1st grade homework? Maybe you would have felt a little more like mouse2 without those answers? I so agree with you. That fact is we did not get any letter at the beginning of the unit and there was not a answer key either. We did not have a problem with coming up with the right answer. The problem was we got it wrong because we as our sons parents could only teach him " THE OLD FASHION WAY " Which by the way has about ten less steps to it. There is going to be problems because not every teacher is going to be up to this. It's more work for them and for the parents ! I can't believe you didn't get the parent letter at the beginning of the unit, my understanding of this program was the was a cornerstone to involving the parents--that doesn't seem to be a downfall of EM, but of that teacher not fully utilizing the program.....I hope LPS is training the teachers properly for the fall to use the program correctly. The letter was 1-2pages with all of the answers and explainations of the work being covered in the unit, and for new concepts-like the function machine for first grade-there was at least 1/2 page on what it is and how to use it.....although the first grade cirriculum is not difficult to understand and the answers are really not needed, from your experience in older grades that piece is critical to the success of the students--I hope and pray this is implemented properly!! |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 08:37 PM Post #17 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 15 NFarquharson Posted: Feb 26 2007, 02:21 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 26 2007, 02:09 PM) QUOTE (mouse2 @ Feb 26 2007, 12:05 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 26 2007, 10:32 AM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 26 2007, 07:37 AM) Also, did you get the parent letter at the beginning of each unit, I thought it was helpful to know what is coming, and it gave you the answers to all the homework assisgnments?? I think that this statement says a lot. An answer key to 1st grade homework? Maybe you would have felt a little more like mouse2 without those answers? I so agree with you. That fact is we did not get any letter at the beginning of the unit and there was not a answer key either. We did not have a problem with coming up with the right answer. The problem was we got it wrong because we as our sons parents could only teach him " THE OLD FASHION WAY " Which by the way has about ten less steps to it. There is going to be problems because not every teacher is going to be up to this. It's more work for them and for the parents ! I can't believe you didn't get the parent letter at the beginning of the unit, my understanding of this program was the was a cornerstone to involving the parents--that doesn't seem to be a downfall of EM, but of that teacher not fully utilizing the program.....I hope LPS is training the teachers properly for the fall to use the program correctly. The letter was 1-2pages with all of the answers and explainations of the work being covered in the unit, and for new concepts-like the function machine for first grade-there was at least 1/2 page on what it is and how to use it.....although the first grade cirriculum is not difficult to understand and the answers are really not needed, from your experience in older grades that piece is critical to the success of the students--I hope and pray this is implemented properly!! If the parents need to be taught the concepts so that they can then help teach the child, then I think the program stinks. My children can do their homework on their own now and I do not want that to change. They rarely need any help from me, which is as it should be, since the teacher should be showing them the techniques and concepts they need to do the work. I am not interested in re-learning in math in a different way so I can spend time doing my kid's homework. I already finished my math classes a long time ago AND I have enough of my own "homework." -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 26 2007, 02:45 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 12:52 PM) It was good to hear both the good and bad from Livonia parents who have actually experienced the program. You can always find "studies" and articles to support your cause on the internet -- I can just as easily find articles that very positive about Everyday Math as you can negative. Just because you read something on the internet does not mean it is gospel. For instance I searched Everyday Math in Yahoo Answers -- half the replies are we use it and our test scores have improved -- the other half of the replies are negative. Who do you believe? I will agree that the presentation was light on any downside of the program. It is interesting to me that Mouse2's class had such a negative experience but the program was still recommended. I get the impression that the teacher was not really invested in seeing it succeed? I think we can all agree that teacher training, preparedness and support for students and parents is necessary for this program to succeed. If this does not happen and our children struggle, I guarentee the BOE will hear about it in the fall. If this program is a success however, we may enjoy an increase in test scores and our children may learn to be critical thinkers. Livoniamom, sure you can find an abundance of articles on EM. The WCC (an extension of the U.S. Department of Education) has evaluated all of them and has stated that 4 studies related to EM met "with reservations" their evidence screens. They conclude that EM may have "potentially positive effects" Keep in mind that EM was developed in the early 80's. Keeping parents in the dark as to the "downside" of EM is, in my opinion, irresponsible of LPS administration. Fortunately, due to this forum, many parents will know what to expect. But what about the parents who will have this program dropped in their lap with no prior knowledge of it's methods and principles? How are parents supposed to be partners in this if they haven't even been given the chance to view a textbook or hear a balanced presentation of the program? The pilot should have been conducted in the open with full disclosure of the programs to to used. This is routinely done in other districts. I have looked at the BOE minutes and can't even find a mention of EM over the past year as it was being piloted. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com mega millions Posted: Feb 26 2007, 02:51 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 607 Member No.: 451 Joined: 9-August 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 26 2007, 02:45 PM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 12:52 PM) It was good to hear both the good and bad from Livonia parents who have actually experienced the program. You can always find "studies" and articles to support your cause on the internet -- I can just as easily find articles that very positive about Everyday Math as you can negative. Just because you read something on the internet does not mean it is gospel. For instance I searched Everyday Math in Yahoo Answers -- half the replies are we use it and our test scores have improved -- the other half of the replies are negative. Who do you believe? I will agree that the presentation was light on any downside of the program. It is interesting to me that Mouse2's class had such a negative experience but the program was still recommended. I get the impression that the teacher was not really invested in seeing it succeed? I think we can all agree that teacher training, preparedness and support for students and parents is necessary for this program to succeed. If this does not happen and our children struggle, I guarentee the BOE will hear about it in the fall. If this program is a success however, we may enjoy an increase in test scores and our children may learn to be critical thinkers. Livoniamom, sure you can find an abundance of articles on EM. The WCC (an extension of the U.S. Department of Education) has evaluated all of them and has stated that 4 studies related to EM met "with reservations" their evidence screens. They conclude that EM may have "potentially positive effects" Keep in mind that EM was developed in the early 80's. Keeping parents in the dark as to the "downside" of EM is, in my opinion, irresponsible of LPS administration. Fortunately, due to this forum, many parents will know what to expect. But what about the parents who will have this program dropped in their lap with no prior knowledge of it's methods and principles? How are parents supposed to be partners in this if they haven't even been given the chance to view a textbook? The pilot should have been conducted in the open with full disclosure of the programs to to used. This is routinely done in other districts. I have looked at the BOE minutes and can't even find a mention of EM over the past year as it was being piloted. I believe you would need to look in the Committee of the Whole stuff. I don't know the workings around that if there are minutes, etc. But that is where I heard it being talked about. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 26 2007, 03:12 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Nothing in the minutes. I also saw nothing in the Dialog, wouldn't that have been a good place to describe the programs being piloted in addition to the whole process and timeline? -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com BoaterDan Posted: Feb 26 2007, 03:44 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 26 2007, 02:09 PM) I can't believe you didn't get the parent letter at the beginning of the unit, my understanding of this program was the was a cornerstone to involving the parents--that doesn't seem to be a downfall of EM, but of that teacher not fully utilizing the program.....I hope LPS is training the teachers properly for the fall to use the program correctly. The letter was 1-2pages with all of the answers and explainations of the work being covered in the unit, and for new concepts-like the function machine for first grade-there was at least 1/2 page on what it is and how to use it.....although the first grade cirriculum is not difficult to understand and the answers are really not needed, from your experience in older grades that piece is critical to the success of the students--I hope and pray this is implemented properly!! I really REALLY don't mean this as an attack on your attempts to be helpful here, but I must say again you're just making this parent and voter even more uneasy. I've posted here a half dozen times or more that I was concerned about the possibility that the success of this program in the pilot was due largely to just the increased enthusiasm and "marketing" it recieved and perhaps wasn't so much a reflection of the quality of the program itself. It's gone unanswered every time. Now you're defending the program by suggesting that if the teacher doesn't "buy in" 100% that shouldn't be considered a reflection on a problem with the program itself. I'm trying to keep an open mind and explore the possibility that this program is better than the traditional math alternatives for the majority of kids... BUT if it's the case that if the program isn't followed and practiced with religious devotion it turns out to be drastically inferior, then that in itself IS a major consideration (and perhaps IS a downfall of the program itself) that should have received considerable public attention and scrutiny. For crying out loud, assuming they're not telling outright lies, we have people right here in our district saying the pilot was a total failure for them and their children. Teachers that were part of the selection came here to this discussion a while back and asked us to trust their judgment - now we must dismiss these parents who say the program failed their kids?? mega millions Posted: Feb 26 2007, 04:11 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 607 Member No.: 451 Joined: 9-August 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 26 2007, 03:12 PM) Nothing in the minutes. I also saw nothing in the Dialog, wouldn't that have been a good place to describe the programs being piloted in addition to the whole process and timeline? I don't believe the committee of the whole minutes are posted as well as those closed session minutes. I don't know why that is, but I am saying they talked about this in the committee of the whole. What you appear to be looking at is actual board meeting minutes (which are posted according to board policy). I can't disagree that it wouldn't hurt to put this stuff in the dialog and haven't checked myself to see if they have ever done so. On that same topic, demographics committee information and information regarding the district looking at closings, etc. were published in the Observer, Dialog and were given through PTA. Although it wasn't called "Legacy Initiative" at the time, the signs were there that something was going to happen. But then again that is a topic we won't agree upon either. I attended the School Safety presentation by Mark Schultz. For having such a large student population, I can't believe the number of people that didn't come. If we want to have more of say in the district we have an obligation to pay attention to what is going on. I really think the Committee of the Whole and Sub Committee meetings are what people should be focusing on. That is where the topics are brought up and originally discussed. With a group like the CFLF setting up their own Committees and having Steve King on the Board, I can't believe that they aren't watching like a hawk everything that is presented at these meetings. I can't say that there aren't things the Board or Administration can do better, but I also believe no matter what side of the fence you are on in this, that are things that we can do better also. So I guess we will continue down the road we are currently on and see what happens in May. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 26 2007, 04:32 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 I really think the Committee of the Whole and Sub Committee meetings are what people should be focusing on. That is where the topics are brought up and originally discussed.... I don't believe the committee of the whole minutes are posted . Makes sense to have no record of any of the important topics that are discussed. So then the idea is that the entire district show up to these meetings to get the scope on the latest happenings in LPS? -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Recalla Posted: Feb 26 2007, 04:39 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 233 Member No.: 437 Joined: 4-August 06 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 26 2007, 04:11 PM) With a group like the CFLF setting up their own Committees and having Steve King on the Board, I can't believe that they aren't watching like a hawk everything that is presented at these meetings. I can't say that there aren't things the Board or Administration can do better, but I also believe no matter what side of the fence you are on in this, that are things that we can do better also. So I guess we will continue down the road we are currently on and see what happens in May. Interesting... So then you agree that the BOE SHOULD be watched like a Hawk by CFLF? Funny, I just read a letter in the paper last Thursday from a woman who was "tired" of reading about people in the Observer (CFLF or otherwise) complaining about school issues - including the Legacy Initiative. She eluded to the fact that (we) should just "give the plan a try" and stop complaining in the paper. (Although she herself doesn't even have a child enrolled yet ) Now you're suggesting that CFLF should be watching the BOE like a hawk? -------------------- JOIN ME IN VOTING FOR PATRICE MANG, EILEEN McDONNELL AND STEVE FUTRELL ON MAY 8TH mega millions Posted: Feb 26 2007, 04:43 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 607 Member No.: 451 Joined: 9-August 06 QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 26 2007, 04:39 PM) QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 26 2007, 04:11 PM) With a group like the CFLF setting up their own Committees and having Steve King on the Board, I can't believe that they aren't watching like a hawk everything that is presented at these meetings. I can't say that there aren't things the Board or Administration can do better, but I also believe no matter what side of the fence you are on in this, that are things that we can do better also. So I guess we will continue down the road we are currently on and see what happens in May. Interesting... So then you agree that the BOE SHOULD be watched like a Hawk by CFLF? Funny, I just read a letter in the paper last Thursday from a woman who was "tired" of reading about people in the Observer (CFLF or otherwise) complaining about school issues - including the Legacy Initiative. She eluded to the fact that (we) should just "give the plan a try" and stop complaining in the paper. (Although she herself doesn't even have a child enrolled yet ) Now you're suggesting that CFLF should be watching the BOE like a hawk? Recalla you should know by now I don't speak for every supporter. I don't even know who the woman was that wrote the editorial. CFLF markets themselves as an advocacy group. How better to advocate then to schedule your large group of members to take turns attending board meetings, committee of the whole and sub committee meetings to determine the goings on in the district and have them inform the remainder of the membership. NFarquharson Posted: Feb 26 2007, 04:53 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 26 2007, 04:11 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 26 2007, 03:12 PM) Nothing in the minutes. I also saw nothing in the Dialog, wouldn't that have been a good place to describe the programs being piloted in addition to the whole process and timeline? I don't believe the committee of the whole minutes are posted as well as those closed session minutes. I don't know why that is, but I am saying they talked about this in the committee of the whole. What you appear to be looking at is actual board meeting minutes (which are posted according to board policy). I can't disagree that it wouldn't hurt to put this stuff in the dialog and haven't checked myself to see if they have ever done so. On that same topic, demographics committee information and information regarding the district looking at closings, etc. were published in the Observer, Dialog and were given through PTA. Although it wasn't called "Legacy Initiative" at the time, the signs were there that something was going to happen. But then again that is a topic we won't agree upon either. I attended the School Safety presentation by Mark Schultz. For having such a large student population, I can't believe the number of people that didn't come. If we want to have more of say in the district we have an obligation to pay attention to what is going on. I really think the Committee of the Whole and Sub Committee meetings are what people should be focusing on. That is where the topics are brought up and originally discussed. With a group like the CFLF setting up their own Committees and having Steve King on the Board, I can't believe that they aren't watching like a hawk everything that is presented at these meetings. I can't say that there aren't things the Board or Administration can do better, but I also believe no matter what side of the fence you are on in this, that are things that we can do better also. So I guess we will continue down the road we are currently on and see what happens in May. Mega, I have been watching the meetings religiously and attending many in person ever since the LI was first rolled out. When I step out or leave early, I make a point to go back and watch that portion later. I have read the Dialoge and all other publications that I receive at my home from cover to cover since moving back to Livonia in 1998. If there was any mention of a math pilot program, it was something very small with no details at all. I think what people are saying is that they would have appreciated more information up front about the pilot and what progams were being considered. They may have liked to look at the materials. Even if you find evidence that it was mentioned once, I don't think that is really going to resolve the issue at hand. Mentioning something once is hardly the same as open communication and inviting input from parents. The same can be said for the Demographics Committee. Yes, it's existence was mentioned in the Dialoge and in the Observer a few times, but there were no invitations to give input and no one anticipated that they would make such drastic changes and close 7 schools...people just thought that perhaps they would put 6th grade in middle school or close a couple of schools at most. Have we learned nothing from the failure to communicate and the mess created by the LI rollout? Why defend the poor communication methods and lack of opportunity for broad input that created the rift in our community? I can understand it if you like the LI or like Everyday Math (although I may disagree,) but I cannot understand why you won't concede that the communication and input has been lacking. This has nothing to do with whether the safety meeting was well attended or not. I intended to go to that meeting myself...right up until one of my kids got sick that evening. Stuff happens and not everything will be well-attended. That does not mean that they should keep repeating the same mistakes. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! mega millions Posted: Feb 26 2007, 05:02 PM Principal Group: Memb24 Posts: 607 Member No.: 451 Joined: 9-August 06 QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 26 2007, 04:53 PM) QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 26 2007, 04:11 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 26 2007, 03:12 PM) Nothing in the minutes. I also saw nothing in the Dialog, wouldn't that have been a good place to describe the programs being piloted in addition to the whole process and timeline? I don't believe the committee of the whole minutes are posted as well as those closed session minutes. I don't know why that is, but I am saying they talked about this in the committee of the whole. What you appear to be looking at is actual board meeting minutes (which are posted according to board policy). I can't disagree that it wouldn't hurt to put this stuff in the dialog and haven't checked myself to see if they have ever done so. On that same topic, demographics committee information and information regarding the district looking at closings, etc. were published in the Observer, Dialog and were given through PTA. Although it wasn't called "Legacy Initiative" at the time, the signs were there that something was going to happen. But then again that is a topic we won't agree upon either. I attended the School Safety presentation by Mark Schultz. For having such a large student population, I can't believe the number of people that didn't come. If we want to have more of say in the district we have an obligation to pay attention to what is going on. I really think the Committee of the Whole and Sub Committee meetings are what people should be focusing on. That is where the topics are brought up and originally discussed. With a group like the CFLF setting up their own Committees and having Steve King on the Board, I can't believe that they aren't watching like a hawk everything that is presented at these meetings. I can't say that there aren't things the Board or Administration can do better, but I also believe no matter what side of the fence you are on in this, that are things that we can do better also. So I guess we will continue down the road we are currently on and see what happens in May. Mega, I have been watching the meetings religiously and attending many in person ever since the LI was first rolled out. When I step out or leave early, I make a point to go back and watch that portion later. I have read the Dialoge and all other publications that I receive at my home from cover to cover since moving back to Livonia in 1998. If there was any mention of a math pilot program, it was something very small with no details at all. I think what people are saying is that they would have appreciated more information up front about the pilot and what progams were being considered. They may have like to look at the materials. Even if you find evidence that it was mentioned once, I don't think that is really going to resolve the issue at hand. Mentioning something once is hardly the same as open communication and inviting input from parents. The same can be said for the Demographics Committee. Yes, it's existance was mentioned in the Dialoge and in the Observer a few times, but there were no invitations to give input and no one anticipated that they would make such drastic changes and close 7 schools...people just thought that perhaps they would put 6th grade in middle school or close a couple of schools at most. Have we learned nothing from the failure to communicate and the mess created by the LI rollout? Why defend the poor communication methods and lack of opportunity for broad input that created the rift in our community? I can understand it if you like the LI or like Everyday Math (although I may disagree,) but I cannot understand why you won't concede that he communication and input has been lacking. This has nothing to do with whether the safety meeting was well attended or not. I inteded to go to that meeting myself...right up until one of my kids got sick that evening. Stuff happens and not everything will be well-attended. That does not mean that they should keep repeating the same mistakes. This not just a one sided issue. I did say that the board can do better, but we as parents have a responsiblity to do better ourselves. I am so tired of hearing that board isn't listening when in many instances, they have listened, but they aren't saying what you want them to say. We have this board and district going in so many different directions right now that we as a community need to come together and prioritize what it is that we can work on together. NFarquharson Posted: Feb 26 2007, 05:11 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 You completely miss the point. Parents are "doing better" than ever before. People are paying much closer attention to what is going on. Some are even "nit-picking" all the small stuff and undoubtedly driving the administration and the BOE crazy. Regardless of whether people attend meetings, it is still the responsibility of the administration and the board to SEEK OUT parental input before making major changes. If everyone refuses to give it, then so be it, but at least there was an opportunity given. That is not the same as mentioning something. The community will only come together when this starts happening regularly. They have a whole team whose purpose is to communicate and talk about how they can improve communication, but yet the board continues to rush things through with little or no opportunity for parental input BEFORE decisions have been made. No one is going to feel they have been listened to until this changes. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! Zeke Posted: Feb 26 2007, 05:14 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 174 Member No.: 309 Joined: 17-February 06 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 26 2007, 05:02 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 26 2007, 04:53 PM) QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 26 2007, 04:11 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 26 2007, 03:12 PM) Nothing in the minutes. I also saw nothing in the Dialog, wouldn't that have been a good place to describe the programs being piloted in addition to the whole process and timeline? I don't believe the committee of the whole minutes are posted as well as those closed session minutes. I don't know why that is, but I am saying they talked about this in the committee of the whole. What you appear to be looking at is actual board meeting minutes (which are posted according to board policy). I can't disagree that it wouldn't hurt to put this stuff in the dialog and haven't checked myself to see if they have ever done so. On that same topic, demographics committee information and information regarding the district looking at closings, etc. were published in the Observer, Dialog and were given through PTA. Although it wasn't called "Legacy Initiative" at the time, the signs were there that something was going to happen. But then again that is a topic we won't agree upon either. I attended the School Safety presentation by Mark Schultz. For having such a large student population, I can't believe the number of people that didn't come. If we want to have more of say in the district we have an obligation to pay attention to what is going on. I really think the Committee of the Whole and Sub Committee meetings are what people should be focusing on. That is where the topics are brought up and originally discussed. With a group like the CFLF setting up their own Committees and having Steve King on the Board, I can't believe that they aren't watching like a hawk everything that is presented at these meetings. I can't say that there aren't things the Board or Administration can do better, but I also believe no matter what side of the fence you are on in this, that are things that we can do better also. So I guess we will continue down the road we are currently on and see what happens in May. Mega, I have been watching the meetings religiously and attending many in person ever since the LI was first rolled out. When I step out or leave early, I make a point to go back and watch that portion later. I have read the Dialoge and all other publications that I receive at my home from cover to cover since moving back to Livonia in 1998. If there was any mention of a math pilot program, it was something very small with no details at all. I think what people are saying is that they would have appreciated more information up front about the pilot and what progams were being considered. They may have like to look at the materials. Even if you find evidence that it was mentioned once, I don't think that is really going to resolve the issue at hand. Mentioning something once is hardly the same as open communication and inviting input from parents. The same can be said for the Demographics Committee. Yes, it's existance was mentioned in the Dialoge and in the Observer a few times, but there were no invitations to give input and no one anticipated that they would make such drastic changes and close 7 schools...people just thought that perhaps they would put 6th grade in middle school or close a couple of schools at most. Have we learned nothing from the failure to communicate and the mess created by the LI rollout? Why defend the poor communication methods and lack of opportunity for broad input that created the rift in our community? I can understand it if you like the LI or like Everyday Math (although I may disagree,) but I cannot understand why you won't concede that he communication and input has been lacking. This has nothing to do with whether the safety meeting was well attended or not. I inteded to go to that meeting myself...right up until one of my kids got sick that evening. Stuff happens and not everything will be well-attended. That does not mean that they should keep repeating the same mistakes. This not just a one sided issue. I did say that the board can do better, but we as parents have a responsiblity to do better ourselves. I am so tired of hearing that board isn't listening when in many instances, they have listened, but they aren't saying what you want them to say. We have this board and district going in so many different directions right now that we as a community need to come together and prioritize what it is that we can work on together. We are going to come together and prioritize............on May 8th. -------------------- 2nd Down & 4 to go! livoniamom Posted: Feb 26 2007, 05:39 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 322 Member No.: 126 Joined: 15-November 05 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 26 2007, 03:44 PM) For crying out loud, assuming they're not telling outright lies, we have people right here in our district saying the pilot was a total failure for them and their children. Teachers that were part of the selection came here to this discussion a while back and asked us to trust their judgment - now we must dismiss these parents who say the program failed their kids?? I watched that meeting were EM was voted on -- NOT ONE parent said the pilot was a total failure for their children. The ONLY place I ever heard that is on this thread from one person (Mouse2). I have to wonder why a teacher would recommend a program that was a "total failure" (as you said) for his/her students and a burden for the teacher and parents -- why would a teacher do that to themselves and other teachers? That is the missing link I am not seeing. Can you at least accept that the program worked well in the first grade class (based on the teacher and parents that spoke at the meeting and on this site)? 2tots Posted: Feb 26 2007, 05:49 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 301 Member No.: 359 Joined: 22-March 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 05:39 PM) QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 26 2007, 03:44 PM) For crying out loud, assuming they're not telling outright lies, we have people right here in our district saying the pilot was a total failure for them and their children. Teachers that were part of the selection came here to this discussion a while back and asked us to trust their judgment - now we must dismiss these parents who say the program failed their kids?? I watched that meeting were EM was voted on -- NOT ONE parent said the pilot was a total failure for their children. The ONLY place I ever heard that is on this thread from one person (Mouse2). I have to wonder why a teacher would recommend a program that was a "total failure" (as you said) for his/her students and a burden for the teacher and parents -- why would a teacher do that to themselves and other teachers? That is the missing link I am not seeing. Can you at least accept that the program worked well in the first grade class (based on the teacher and parents that spoke at the meeting and on this site)? Again I remind you that the issue was voted on AND approved prior to the community being given TIME to respond. I know for a fact that there were people at that meeting who had intended on speaking out against the program, yet they were shoved to the end of the meeting. At that point, after the program was approved, what could possibly have come of anything they had to say? That's why people are frustrated and angry. Decisions are made BEFORE the meetings and it is clear that a balanced discussion is not wanted. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 26 2007, 05:59 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 05:39 PM) QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 26 2007, 03:44 PM) For crying out loud, assuming they're not telling outright lies, we have people right here in our district saying the pilot was a total failure for them and their children. Teachers that were part of the selection came here to this discussion a while back and asked us to trust their judgment - now we must dismiss these parents who say the program failed their kids?? I watched that meeting were EM was voted on -- NOT ONE parent said the pilot was a total failure for their children. The ONLY place I ever heard that is on this thread from one person (Mouse2). I have to wonder why a teacher would recommend a program that was a "total failure" (as you said) for his/her students and a burden for the teacher and parents -- why would a teacher do that to themselves and other teachers? That is the missing link I am not seeing. Can you at least accept that the program worked well in the first grade class (based on the teacher and parents that spoke at the meeting and on this site)? http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles...3/12&ID=Ar00600 Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Mar 12, 2003; Section:Editorial&Opinon; Page:6 The ‘Fuzzy Math’ Bath By MATTHEW CLAVEL Mr. Clavel is now writing a book on his teaching experiences. This piece is adapted from City Journal’s Web site, www.city-journal.org. ‘Come on, I need someone to take a chance.Who can start the puzzle?" It wasn’t working. We’d gone through six straight wrong answers, and now the children were tired of feeling lost. It was only October, and already my fourth-grade public school class in the South Bronx was demoralized. Day after day of going over strange,seemingly disconnected math lessons had squelched my students’ interest in the subject. Then, quietly, 10-year-old David spoke up. "Mr.Clavel,no one understands this stuff."He looked up at me with a defeated expression; other children nodded pleadingly. "Look," I began, sighing deeply."Math isn’t half as hard as you all probably think right now." A few children seemed relieved — at least I wasn’t just denying their problem. "There are different ways to teach it," I continued. "I don’t want to do this either…so we’re not going to — at least most of the time." I was thinking out loud now, and many of the children looked startled. "We can use these math books when we need them, but I’m going to figure out different ways to teach you the most important things." If school officials knew how far my lessons would deviate from the school-district-mandated math program in the months ahead, they probably would have fired me on the spot. But boy, did my children need a fresh approach. Since kindergarten, most of them had been taught math using this same dreadful curriculum, called Everyday Mathematics — a slightly older version of a program that the New York City schools chancellor, Joel Klein, has now unwisely chosen for most of Gotham’s public elementary schools; the district had phased in Everyday Mathematics grade by grade, and it had just reached fourth grade during my first year of teaching. The curriculum’s failure was undeniable: Not one of my students knew his or her times tables, and few had mastered even the most basic operations; knowledge of multiplication and division was abysmal. The curriculum derives from a pedagogical philosophy that goes by several names — "Constructivist Math," "New-New Math," and, to its detractors, "Fuzzy Math." I’ll stick with Fuzzy Math, since the critics are right. Nothing about Fuzzy Math makes much sense from a teaching standpoint. One weakness is its emphasis on "cooperative learning." Fuzzy Math belongs to a family of recent pedagogical innovations which imagine that children possess innate wisdom and can teach each other while a self-effacing "facilitator" (the adult formerly known as a teacher) flutters over them.If the architects of Everyday Mathematics had their way, I would have placed my children in various groups, for the most part unsupervised,so that they could work on one elaborate activity after another, learning on their own. I’d derive bitter pleasure in watching a Fuzzy Math "professionaldevelopment" expert try using this approach in an inner-city classroom, filled with children whose often unstructured home lives make self-restraint a big problem. I avoided this loss of control, because right from the outset, even before I chucked the whole program, I felt that pursing cooperative learning with my students was asking for trouble, and so I mostly didn’t do it. I was going to teach; my students were going to learn. Everyday Mathematics is bad enough from the standpoint of maintaining a disciplined class. Making it even worse is its Fuzzy Mathinspired emphasis on "critical thinking skills" over old-fashioned drilling and the mastery of facts.What matters is showing that you understand a concept, not whether you can perform a calculation and come up with a right answer. Defenders of critical thinking say we need to rescue our schools from a repressive "drilland-kill" pedagogy that makes children automatons, spitting back the facts and rules that teachers have drummed into their heads and never learning to think on their own.The truth, of course, is that no one claims that knowing how to think independently isn’t important. But thinking can’t take flight unless you do know some basic facts — and nowhere is this more the case than in math. If you really want your students to engage in "higher-order thinking" in math, get them to master basic operations like their times tables first. Unfortunately, a student in a Fuzzy Math program — including Everyday Mathematics — is unlikely to master much of anything.The hours of logically linked lessons that old-style math classes spent on practicing operations so that they became second nature to students just are not there. Equally mystifying, Everyday Mathematics, like Fuzzy Math programs generally, abruptly introduces concepts like basic algebra that students aren’t officially taught until years later. Imagine you’re a fourth grader and see in your workbook, right next to a relatively easy addition word problem, a forbidding algebra exercise you couldn’t begin to answer because, well, you haven’t learned algebra yet. Bewilderment is inevitable. Teachers frustrated by this incoherent approach got little sympathy from school administrators. District officials told us that we should just keep going — even if not a single child in our rooms understood what we were talking about. Yet the district officials themselves seemed perplexed by Everyday Mathematics. One assessment, created by the district to judge the progress the fourth-graders were making in the program, came with an answer sheet with two incorrect answers. As for students, many just tuned out. The lesson plans jumped around so much that an especially confusing and oddly presented topic was only going to be on the agenda for a few days. Why bother trying to understand it? The repudiation of skills in Fuzzy Math also encourages a detrimental over-reliance on calculators. The use of these gadgets to replace mental computation raises concerns about learning skills for all school children. According to a 2000 Brookings Institute study, fourthgraders who used calculators every day were likely to do worse in math than other students. But it’s minority children like those in my class who are turning to calculators the most. The Brookings study reports that half of all black school children used calculators every day, compared with 27% of white school children. There’s mounting evidence that Fuzzy Math doesn’t work. During the 1990s, Fuzzy Math represented the new wave, and President Clinton’s Department of Education was pushing it, so district after district across the country tried it out. But its popularity among educational elites could not hide the dismal test scores. California, ever on the cutting edge of educational reforms, enthusiastically embraced Fuzzy Math in the early 1990s only to watch state math scores plummet. In 1996, California registered one of the worst scores of all 50 states on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. By the end of 1997, the State Board of Education realized its mistake and produced sensible standards that encouraged more traditional math instruction. Regrettably, in the heavily bureaucratized public schools, bad results do not necessarily lead to re-evaluation. Fuzzy Math, cooperative learning, and a myriad of other educational fads are the pet projects of very influential, tenured university "experts" who fiercely protect their theoretical turf, in teachers colleges and among school administrators. If test scores seem to rise thanks to Fuzzy Math, great: Campus enthusiasts will tout the results. If they stagnate or fall, the theoreticians will find ways to poke holes in any critical study that blames the theory. The frustration of parents and community leaders has gathered momentum. Parents overwhelmingly want to set aside ideological preoccupations in math and get back to fundamentals. A big push is on to allow parents to opt their children out of Everyday Mathematics and other Fuzzy Math programs. "Cooperative" learning that leads to classroom chaos, schizoid lessons that fail to impart mastery, lousy results, parental outrage — shouldn’t every teacher have done as I did and thrown Elementary Mathematics into the garbage? But it isn’t easy for teachers to disobey mandated curricula — not if they want to keep their jobs. Most teachers are trying to make a career in education, so they teach a newly mandated curriculum even if they know it to be absurd. Nor will school bureaucrats usually be quick to get rid of a deeply flawed curriculum. After all, if the "experts" say Fuzzy Math is the way to go, then the problem must be in how teachers are implementing the theory, not in the theory itself. By deciding against local control early on and moving to centralize the school system, Mr. Klein and Mayor Bloomberg took a tremendous risk. The advantage of charter schools and decentralized public schools is that they have the chance to innovate and distinguish themselves. Any leader of a school system who decides to put blanket "reforms" in place could achieve great success; he also risks unknowingly stamping out improvements made at the local level. Unfortunately, it appears that Messrs. Klein and Bloomberg, by embracing an all-but-universal Fuzzy Math curriculum, are setting themselves up to lose their big gamble. The inner-city students subjected to this curriculum will be the real losers. What will happen to children who never adequately learn basic operations like long division — or even their times tables? How will they succeed in the knowledge-based 21 st-century economy? Most of them won’t have parents who can afford math tutors to help them catch up.My guess is that most of these children will never get the education they need, and we’ll just brush another catastrophe under the rug. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Livonia Voter Posted: Feb 26 2007, 06:02 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 1,256 Member No.: 165 Joined: 29-November 05 QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 26 2007, 05:02 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Feb 26 2007, 04:53 PM) QUOTE (mega millions @ Feb 26 2007, 04:11 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 26 2007, 03:12 PM) Nothing in the minutes. I also saw nothing in the Dialog, wouldn't that have been a good place to describe the programs being piloted in addition to the whole process and timeline? I don't believe the committee of the whole minutes are posted as well as those closed session minutes. I don't know why that is, but I am saying they talked about this in the committee of the whole. What you appear to be looking at is actual board meeting minutes (which are posted according to board policy). I can't disagree that it wouldn't hurt to put this stuff in the dialog and haven't checked myself to see if they have ever done so. On that same topic, demographics committee information and information regarding the district looking at closings, etc. were published in the Observer, Dialog and were given through PTA. Although it wasn't called "Legacy Initiative" at the time, the signs were there that something was going to happen. But then again that is a topic we won't agree upon either. I attended the School Safety presentation by Mark Schultz. For having such a large student population, I can't believe the number of people that didn't come. If we want to have more of say in the district we have an obligation to pay attention to what is going on. I really think the Committee of the Whole and Sub Committee meetings are what people should be focusing on. That is where the topics are brought up and originally discussed. With a group like the CFLF setting up their own Committees and having Steve King on the Board, I can't believe that they aren't watching like a hawk everything that is presented at these meetings. I can't say that there aren't things the Board or Administration can do better, but I also believe no matter what side of the fence you are on in this, that are things that we can do better also. So I guess we will continue down the road we are currently on and see what happens in May. Mega, I have been watching the meetings religiously and attending many in person ever since the LI was first rolled out. When I step out or leave early, I make a point to go back and watch that portion later. I have read the Dialoge and all other publications that I receive at my home from cover to cover since moving back to Livonia in 1998. If there was any mention of a math pilot program, it was something very small with no details at all. I think what people are saying is that they would have appreciated more information up front about the pilot and what progams were being considered. They may have like to look at the materials. Even if you find evidence that it was mentioned once, I don't think that is really going to resolve the issue at hand. Mentioning something once is hardly the same as open communication and inviting input from parents. The same can be said for the Demographics Committee. Yes, it's existance was mentioned in the Dialoge and in the Observer a few times, but there were no invitations to give input and no one anticipated that they would make such drastic changes and close 7 schools...people just thought that perhaps they would put 6th grade in middle school or close a couple of schools at most. Have we learned nothing from the failure to communicate and the mess created by the LI rollout? Why defend the poor communication methods and lack of opportunity for broad input that created the rift in our community? I can understand it if you like the LI or like Everyday Math (although I may disagree,) but I cannot understand why you won't concede that he communication and input has been lacking. This has nothing to do with whether the safety meeting was well attended or not. I inteded to go to that meeting myself...right up until one of my kids got sick that evening. Stuff happens and not everything will be well-attended. That does not mean that they should keep repeating the same mistakes. This not just a one sided issue. I did say that the board can do better, but we as parents have a responsiblity to do better ourselves. I am so tired of hearing that board isn't listening when in many instances, they have listened, but they aren't saying what you want them to say. We have this board and district going in so many different directions right now that we as a community need to come together and prioritize what it is that we can work on together. Why is it that "come together" means Support the board? PS The board does not listen, and your fatigue does not change the truth. -------------------- Don't blame me, I Voted for Reform! livoniamom Posted: Feb 26 2007, 06:04 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 322 Member No.: 126 Joined: 15-November 05 QUOTE (2tots @ Feb 26 2007, 05:49 PM) I know for a fact that there were people at that meeting who had intended on speaking out against the program, yet they were shoved to the end of the meeting. Were these people whose children participated in the pilot -- or just those who were going to recite research? The reason is -- I think it still would have been worthwhile for those with actual experience to speak. mouse2 Posted: Feb 26 2007, 06:04 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 05:39 PM) QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 26 2007, 03:44 PM) For crying out loud, assuming they're not telling outright lies, we have people right here in our district saying the pilot was a total failure for them and their children. Teachers that were part of the selection came here to this discussion a while back and asked us to trust their judgment - now we must dismiss these parents who say the program failed their kids?? I watched that meeting were EM was voted on -- NOT ONE parent said the pilot was a total failure for their children. The ONLY place I ever heard that is on this thread from one person (Mouse2). I have to wonder why a teacher would recommend a program that was a "total failure" (as you said) for his/her students and a burden for the teacher and parents -- why would a teacher do that to themselves and other teachers? That is the missing link I am not seeing. Can you at least accept that the program worked well in the first grade class (based on the teacher and parents that spoke at the meeting and on this site)? NO I can't there is more than 5 kids in that class room ! Like I said I have the tape from from the teacher meeting she was not going to go against her dept. head who wanted this NEW MATH. |
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 08:39 PM Post #18 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 16 NFarquharson Posted: Feb 26 2007, 06:24 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 06:04 PM) QUOTE (2tots @ Feb 26 2007, 05:49 PM) I know for a fact that there were people at that meeting who had intended on speaking out against the program, yet they were shoved to the end of the meeting. Were these people whose children participated in the pilot -- or just those who were going to recite research? The reason is -- I think it still would have been worthwhile for those with actual experience to speak. They didn't get the call to come line up to speak out in support of the program like the others did. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 26 2007, 06:53 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Can you at least accept that the program worked well in the first grade class (based on the teacher and parents that spoke at the meeting and on this site)? Not enough of a sample livoniamom. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Recalla Posted: Feb 26 2007, 07:14 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 233 Member No.: 437 Joined: 4-August 06 Remember, at least 5 people liked the Legacy Initiative, and that was enough interest (research excluded) to vote it in. -------------------- JOIN ME IN VOTING FOR PATRICE MANG, EILEEN McDONNELL AND STEVE FUTRELL ON MAY 8TH ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 26 2007, 07:21 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 06:04 PM) QUOTE (2tots @ Feb 26 2007, 05:49 PM) I know for a fact that there were people at that meeting who had intended on speaking out against the program, yet they were shoved to the end of the meeting. Were these people whose children participated in the pilot -- or just those who were going to recite research? The reason is -- I think it still would have been worthwhile for those with actual experience to speak. What about the parents, teachers and kids from across this country who have all spoken out against EM, the districts who dropped the program? The striking part of all of their criticisms and difficulties is that they share so many similarities. The argument that these people are so different and that LPS couldn't possibly share common characteristics to ANY of them is illogical. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com f11 Posted: Feb 26 2007, 09:00 PM LPS, transportation for all Group: Super Moderators Posts: 948 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-October 05 Interesting video regarding EM.. Math education, an inconvienent truth mouse2 Posted: Feb 26 2007, 09:46 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (f11 @ Feb 26 2007, 09:00 PM) Interesting video regarding EM.. Math education, an inconvienent truth Thank-you for showing what we call in my house "the math from hell " Take a good look everybody that is what we went thru last year. 2tots Posted: Feb 26 2007, 10:28 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 301 Member No.: 359 Joined: 22-March 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 06:04 PM) QUOTE (2tots @ Feb 26 2007, 05:49 PM) I know for a fact that there were people at that meeting who had intended on speaking out against the program, yet they were shoved to the end of the meeting. Were these people whose children participated in the pilot -- or just those who were going to recite research? The reason is -- I think it still would have been worthwhile for those with actual experience to speak. What difference does it make? 2tots Posted: Feb 26 2007, 10:41 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 301 Member No.: 359 Joined: 22-March 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 06:04 PM) QUOTE (2tots @ Feb 26 2007, 05:49 PM) I know for a fact that there were people at that meeting who had intended on speaking out against the program, yet they were shoved to the end of the meeting. or just those who were going to recite research? You use the phrase "just those who were going to recite research" as if there is something wrong with doing research. Why are the personal experiences of people not in LPS any less valid than those in the district? If the program doesn't work, I want to know about it BEFORE it is implemented. I also think that if there is so much information out there both for and against, ALL sides need to be reviewed and researched very carefully so that an EDUCATED conclusion can be reached. The Board DID NOT analyze and discuss this anywhere near enough. There is a lot more than money at stake here. We are talking about the education of thousands of children. THEY deserve better. Recalla Posted: Feb 26 2007, 11:24 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 233 Member No.: 437 Joined: 4-August 06 QUOTE (f11 @ Feb 26 2007, 09:00 PM) Interesting video regarding EM.. Math education, an inconvienent truth Quote from video and EM text: "The authors of Everyday Mathematics do not believe it is worth the time and effort to fully develop paper-and-pencil long division algorithms for all possible whole number, fraction, and decimal problems. Mastery of the intricacies of these algorithms is a huge undertaking, and one that experience tells us is doomed to failure for many students. It simply does not seem wise…, while nearly anyone can quickly and accurately find a quotient with a calculator." LPS... What the hell are you getting us into????!!!!!! -------------------- JOIN ME IN VOTING FOR PATRICE MANG, EILEEN McDONNELL AND STEVE FUTRELL ON MAY 8TH mouse2 Posted: Feb 26 2007, 11:29 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 26 2007, 11:24 PM) QUOTE (f11 @ Feb 26 2007, 09:00 PM) Interesting video regarding EM.. Math education, an inconvienent truth Quote from video and EM text: "The authors of Everyday Mathematics do not believe it is worth the time and effort to fully develop paper-and-pencil long division algorithms for all possible whole number, fraction, and decimal problems. Mastery of the intricacies of these algorithms is a huge undertaking, and one that experience tells us is doomed to failure for many students. It simply does not seem wise…, while nearly anyone can quickly and accurately find a quotient with a calculator." LPS... What the hell are you getting us into????!!!!!! something very very bad ! bmom Posted: Feb 27 2007, 08:56 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 256 Member No.: 115 Joined: 13-November 05 QUOTE (Recalla @ Feb 26 2007, 11:24 PM) QUOTE (f11 @ Feb 26 2007, 09:00 PM) Interesting video regarding EM.. Math education, an inconvienent truth Quote from video and EM text: "The authors of Everyday Mathematics do not believe it is worth the time and effort to fully develop paper-and-pencil long division algorithms for all possible whole number, fraction, and decimal problems. Mastery of the intricacies of these algorithms is a huge undertaking, and one that experience tells us is doomed to failure for many students. It simply does not seem wise…, while nearly anyone can quickly and accurately find a quotient with a calculator." LPS... What the hell are you getting us into????!!!!!! My thoughts exactly. My child is in the 5th grade and we are experiencing our first taste of EM this year. When she was working on math homework, I noticed she whipped out a calculator and started going to town on it. I aksed her, what was she doing and it was the same thing as the video on this thread. (division) So I decided to ask her to solve the problem the "old-fashioned way". She looked at me and said "I can't remember how to get started"!!! I didn't know what to say. So needless to say, I sat down and showed her. From that day on, I have let her finish her homework the "EM" way and also showed her the traditional way. I am very concerned about this program and so should the K-4 people. I think LPS made a huge mistake. ForMySons Posted: Feb 27 2007, 09:17 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 205 Member No.: 205 Joined: 8-December 05 QUOTE (cmic @ Feb 24 2007, 08:43 AM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Feb 24 2007, 08:47 AM) QUOTE (ForMySons @ Feb 24 2007, 12:00 AM) QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 23 2007, 11:34 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:12 PM) QUOTE (plmask @ Feb 23 2007, 07:03 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Feb 23 2007, 07:01 PM) I don't really think that this is sufficient. IF and that is a big IF Shelia Alles really did specify the the detailed info concerning the pilot at a BOE meeting it should have been followed up with a letter to all potentially affected parents. The letter should have stated the specific programs to be piloted so as to give parents an opportunity to view the text and formulate questions. That, I feel, is the administration's duty. I wonder what the cost would be to mail a letter to the parent of every K-3 student in the district? One thing is for certain, if they had fully informed parents about the pilot and the programs being used, they would have had a whole lot of questions from concerned parents to answer. A lot more than the BOE posed. Though the studies posted here were interesting, I take more stock in the experiences of the LIVONIA teachers, the LIVONIA students and the LIVONIA parents who have been using this program since school started. No one who actually participated in the pilot (actually no one at all) stood before the board and urged them to reject this program. It sounds as if you are upset that you didn't know earlier that there was a pilot program taking place (although you would not have been included in it anyway). Also, you think all parents should have had the opportunity to review the text. My guess is very few parents that were not a part of the pilot would have been interested in reviewing the text -- also, can really form an opinion based on looking at the materials alone? Again, the fact that the pilot went well in LIVONIA and the fact that almost all our neighbors use this program (and enjoy higher MEAP scores then us) is enough for me. I simply value the opinions of the parents and teachers in this district WHO HAVE USED EM more then those in Elhurst, IL, New Milford, NY, etc... Livonia Mom--I respectfully disagree. 1. A lot of parents in this community have math oriented backgrounds--why shouldn't they have a chance to evaluate the materials and voice any concerns? I believe that strong math and science backgrounds are vital to this area's future. Any mis-step in our childrens' education can have truly hurt us. 2. What makes LPS so unique that results in other states do not matter, but results in nearby communities do matter? 3. Do the MEAP scores truly indicate the success of the program in the other neighboring areas? As mentioned earlier there are many factors that contribute to success. It could be that there are a lot of parents working with their kids or that are sending them to tutors. 4. My understanding is that the pilot was for only 1 semester. If that is a correct assumption, there is no way the teachers could evaluate long-term success. Was the pilot really long enough? How we compare to our neighboring communities matters a great deal--to families searching for a school community for their families, why would yo move to livonia when meaps are better in surrounding communities??? (not that is the best indicator of success, but it is the only concrete indicator people have to eval a district)--that is also why studies of EM in other states don't really matter to me, EM "aligns with the states cirriculum" -per the district, maybe it doesn't align well with other states cirrciulums, maybe that's why it's not regarded highly (I don't know just speculating)......also, before the LI and before this blog, did the district inform all parents of cirriculum changes???-being a new school mom , I don't know the answer, but I suspect they did not, should they?? I don't know, but I do feel not different from other cirriculum changes--just that we now have an avenue to connect ourselves and speak about it, and beat it like a dead horse!! It is called, "Teaching to the Test." This is probably why my son received conflicting results between the national OLSAT test and the MEAP. In one he shows up as an awesome math student and in the other he shows up as an average math student. ILIkeLI Posted: Feb 27 2007, 02:42 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 This is from the LPS dialog, Jan/Feb 04. It would appear that LPS hasn't had a problem in the past with publicizing pilot programs. Although the unobjectionable nature of this particular pilot may have played a role in that decision. "Hayes Elementary school has been chosen as a pilot school for a new program being developed by Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano.The program, called “Health Wise and Pound Smart”educates and encour-ages children to practice healthy eating habits..." -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com BoaterDan Posted: Feb 27 2007, 04:08 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (livoniamom @ Feb 26 2007, 05:39 PM) I watched that meeting were EM was voted on -- NOT ONE parent said the pilot was a total failure for their children. The ONLY place I ever heard that is on this thread from one person (Mouse2). I have to wonder why a teacher would recommend a program that was a "total failure" (as you said) for his/her students and a burden for the teacher and parents -- why would a teacher do that to themselves and other teachers? That is the missing link I am not seeing. Can you at least accept that the program worked well in the first grade class (based on the teacher and parents that spoke at the meeting and on this site)? Are you even reading the posts here? The point is that these parents weren't asked for their feedback. HELLO!!! It is only a tiny fraction of the people in this district and community that feel compelled or comfortable speaking at a board meeting, so your statement is utterly irrelevant. The only thing I can accept at this point is that at least one teacher thinks it worked well for her class, at least a few parents think it worked well for their kids, and at least two parents think it is an abysmal failure and a horrible mistake. That's about the sum total of the evidence we have publicly from here in our district. All that jazz in the presentation about neighboring districts or re-up rates blah blah blah MUST also be dismissed if you're going to claim the research isn't valid because it's not from our district. So, EITHER WAY (just district experience or including other data) all we know is this program seems to work well for some but clearly doesn't work at all for others. That fact was not appropriately/sufficiently discussed and analyzed in public like it should have been. Unless you can show me some documentation showing that parents like the ones that have posted here were in fact heard during the pilot period and the specific conscious decision was made that their problems were anomolies, then there's nothing really more to discuss. If that isn't the case, then the board taking only one week to think about a half million dollar decision based on a clearly flawed presentation is really the only issue at this point, and it's one that can only be addressed on May 8th. Bill Williamson Posted: Feb 27 2007, 06:07 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 78 Member No.: 406 Joined: 13-May 06 QUOTE (BoaterDan @ Feb 27 2007, 04:08 PM)
|
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 08:40 PM Post #19 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 17 cmic Posted: Mar 17 2007, 03:28 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 1,530 Member No.: 217 Joined: 11-December 05 Not well. Carefully implies a focus group, a year to test it, garner community feedback and take the time to make sure the plan is successful for the majority of the community. I sincerely don't believe that was done. Ceceilia many of your colleagues feel the same. I would be sitting at the pool during the summer and there would be teacher's there complaining about the LI and saying it wasn't good for kids. They told me that there are a LOT of teachers that oppose the plan. It is irritating when you don't recognize that there are teachers that are opposed to the plan as well. -------------------- Ok, so it is warming up! ILIkeLI Posted: Mar 17 2007, 07:40 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (cecelia @ Mar 17 2007, 02:39 PM) QUOTE (Friday @ Mar 17 2007, 08:54 AM) And thanks for pointing out that there is another side at all. LPS never would have. If you talk to Jennifer Abler she will tell you both sides. Both sides were considered before the decision was made. While I am certain that Ms. Abler is a wonderful person, I do not believe that she has the qualifications to have a deep enough understanding of advanced math and how this program will not adequately prepare kids to meet the demands of Algebra and beyond. I feel much more comfortable reading the reviews of reform math by prof's from MIT and Stanford. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Mrs.M Posted: Mar 17 2007, 08:57 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 849 Member No.: 49 Joined: 29-October 05 I do believe the topic title should be changed to "Topic of the Second Semester". It certainly has merited top billing in the ele schools. ILIkeLI Posted: Mar 17 2007, 09:09 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 You're right Mrs. M! A little more to consider.... The Fordham Foundation's The State of State Standards 2006 has given California's math standards a top rating. (CA shares an A with MA and IN). What is interesting is that EM is not on California's "approved" list of math textbooks for it's schools. Those district's seeking to use it must apply for a waiver and those that have tried to adopt it have been met with fierce opposition. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Mar 17 2007, 09:15 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 States Respond to New Math Guidelines: Back to Basics? February 2007 Waves of public debate over math education have hit Washington and several other states, since the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics released its new guidelines in September of 2006. The NCTM report, "Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten Through Grade 8 Mathematics," was the most important since the infamous 1989 standards (see Education Reporter, Nov. 2006). "Focal Points" recommends that states simplify their math standards and objectives to teach just three crucial concepts in each grade. Compared to the 1989 standards, the new recommendations place a much stronger emphasis on basic skills and procedures, such as "quick recall" of multiplication and division facts in 4th grade, and multiplying fractions in 6th grade. The 1989 standards profoundly affected math curricula in school districts across the nation. Only half of all states now require students to memorize multiplication tables at any point during their academic career. It's little wonder, then, that "Focal Points" has given educators and parents much to talk about — especially in Washington State, where a math crisis is making the discussion urgent. Washington's class of 2008 is supposed to be the first in which every student must pass the 12th grade WASL math exam in order to graduate; but only 58% of this group passed the 10th grade math WASL last year. Gov. Chris Gregoire and Supt. Terry Bergeson support a measure, now pending in the legislature, to postpone the math requirement until 2011. Other indicators in Washington State all point in the same direction. Only 52% of 7th graders pass the math WASL. Tutoring revenue has increased 340% in ten years. As in other states, a significant number of parents have banded together against the reform math curriculum they blame for students' math woes. Their group, "Where's the Math," includes "Washington parents and educators for mathematically correct curriculum." Spokeswoman M.J. McDermott "stars" in a short online movie explaining the shortcomings of Washington's two most popular reform math curricula, TERC Investigations and Everyday Mathematics. "Students who learn math by TERC Investigations rarely become efficient, confident, and fluent math users," she concludes after demonstrating the TERC approach to two-digit multiplication. About two million children nationwide use the other curriculum, Everyday Math. McDermott demonstrates that neither of the textbook's two-digit multiplication processes (algorithms) is as efficient or straightforward as the standard multiplication algorithm familiar to all parents. Under pressure to innovate, both of these textbooks have devised methods that make arithmetic more complicated for children, while still failing to help them understand the underlying concepts of arithmetic (which is reform math's goal and justification). McDermott quotes at length from the teacher's edition of Everyday Math. The authors "do not believe it is worth students' time and effort to fully develop highly efficient paper-and-pencil algorithms for all possible . . . problems. Mastery of the intricacies of such algorithms is a huge endeavor, one that experience tells us is doomed to failure for many students. It is simply counter-productive to invest many hours of precious class time on such algorithms . . . particularly because quotients can be found quickly and accurately with a calculator." The new "Focal Points" report emphasizes that the algorithms in question are just such basic skills: long division, multiplying and dividing fractions, etc. "Where's the Math" has seized on "Focal Points" as a tool against reform math, and Washington school administrators have taken up a defensive posture against the report. Supt. Bergeson announced in October that she stands by existing standards and encouraged the state to "stay the course." Both she and Gov. Gregoire blamed failed implementation by teachers rather than the curriculum itself. It remains to be seen whether the public outcry in Washington will lead to back-to-basics math standards, but it is likely to do so. Maryland is also the scene of much discussion over "Focal Points." Critics of the math standards that Maryland has been using point out that the curriculum is anything but focused; the objectives for each grade number between 50 and 60, with much repetition of concepts in each year. The Maryland Department of Education is now meeting with math supervisors to discuss "Focal Points," with a view toward adopting the new standards. At least 12 states have told NCTM they plan to change their math standards based on the new recommendations. California has been moving away from "reform" math for nearly a decade, and Indiana and Massachusetts have already instituted back-to-basics changes. Utah, North Carolina and Florida are among the states that plan to revise their standards within the next few years. If all these large states follow the NCTM's new advice, the textbook industry will almost certainly respond with major changes to math materials. View information on NCTM's report online at www.nctm.org/focalpoints/intro.asp. View Where's the Math's movie, Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth, at www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Jimid Posted: Mar 19 2007, 08:52 AM Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 3,064 Member No.: 1 Joined: 5-October 05 I hope this topic can be used constructively. I have a very strong feeling that once kids start bringing home work home, thats when most parents will start to realize that something has changed. If EM has caused such debate on this forum, with only 500 members, I can only imagine what will happen when 8,000 kids bring home their math homework. And if there are not a lot of questions at that point, you may have found the real reason for poor math scores . ILIkeLI Posted: Mar 19 2007, 09:06 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Exactly Jimid. I do not think that enough parents understand that this program will be very unfamiliar to them and their children. Especially the children who had a traditional math program this year and will switch over to EM in the fall. LPS has once again done a great disservice to parents by not communicating the details of this program to parents who will have the ultimate responsibility in making it work. Let's be clear on that point, intensive parental involevement and outside tutoring are what boosts scores in district's that use EM. Those parents that don't understand that this program is very non-traditional as well as those that can't afford tutoring will have kids that suffer the most. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com f11 Posted: Mar 19 2007, 09:12 AM LPS, transportation for all Group: Super Moderators Posts: 948 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-October 05 Something I have been wondering....Did the district enter into any sort of contract for the use of "everyday math" for a certain number of years?...What if the program is deemed unsuccessful and we are contractually bound to keep buying the materials?.. ILIkeLI Posted: Mar 19 2007, 09:26 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 Teachers speak out at school board meeting; Everyday Math not working http://senecanewsdispatch.com/articles/200...news1101-07.txt by Wes James Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:13 PM CST John Wydick then read the letter aloud: “My name is John Wydick. I am a fourth grade teacher and I have been designated to speak on behalf of the teaching staff at Seneca Elementary School. “We as the elementary staff, with the knowledge of Mrs. Barnes, feel that now is the time to state our position on our current math curriculum, Everyday Math. “Soon after fully implementing the program, we discovered that it does not meet the needs of the majority of our students. It is our professional judgment that the topics and skills that are left out prohibits students from building the foundation that they need in middle school, high school, college and the real world. We also determined Everyday Math’s “spiral process” of teaching one method one day, another method the next and then an entirely unrelated topic leaves students confused and frustrated. “Mrs. Barnes has allowed us to supplement the program to help meet the needs of our students; however, the philosophy of the program that if students don’t get it now, they’ll get it later, doesn’t work. For students to engage in ‘higher-order thinking’ in math, they need to master basic operations first. We are professionals and our job is to teach the students. If we are collectively seeing that what we’re doing isn’t reaching the majority of students, then we need to research and evaluate curriculum and find what will work. The elementary staff would like to form a committee and do just that. We need a curriculum that not only addresses our GLES, but introduces, reinforces and expects mastery of critical thinking and computation skills meeting the needs of a wider range of students.” At the conclusion of the reading applause broke out in the room. A copy of the letter was presented to board members. What a courageous group. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com NFarquharson Posted: Mar 19 2007, 09:27 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (f11 @ Mar 19 2007, 09:12 AM) Something I have been wondering....Did the district enter into any sort of contract for the use of "everyday math" for a certain number of years?...What if the program is deemed unsuccessful and we are contractually bound to keep buying the materials?.. I assume the district always has the ability to change to another program, but since we are making a more than $400k up front investment in the books and materials (in addition to the yearly cost of student workbooks,) it would be a shame to change after a short time. -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! ILIkeLI Posted: Mar 19 2007, 09:31 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (f11 @ Mar 19 2007, 09:12 AM) Something I have been wondering....Did the district enter into any sort of contract for the use of "everyday math" for a certain number of years?...What if the program is deemed unsuccessful and we are contractually bound to keep buying the materials?.. I have wondered the same thing. I have read some accounts of districts entering into arrangements to adopt the program along with some grant money in exchange for the use of the district's outcome data after implementation. I get the impression that the NSF (National Science Foundation) who funded the development of EM by UCMP is desperate to have it utilized since it has received so much negative reaction and has been dropped by so many. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com ILIkeLI Posted: Mar 19 2007, 10:54 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 October 11, 2003 Riverhead Central School District has received an important new grant to help enhance its middle school math curriculum. An $11.5 million grant by the National Science Foundation (NSF) is to be distributed over the course of five years to a consortium of ten schools on Long Island (Riverhead, Amityville, Brentwood, Freeport, Hempstead, Longwood, Uniondale, Westbury, William Floyd and Wyandanch). The NSF grant will be administered by Hofstra and Stony Brook Universites and include services from Brookhaven National Laboratory. "The main reason Everyday and Connected Math curriculums were adopted in Hamilton County was because we received a $5 million National Science Foundation Grant from the federal government. So, HCDE who has never seen a grant they didn't like, decided to gamble on an unproven math program and lost..." School math books, nonsense, and the National Science Foundation February 2007 "...but the NSF, oblivious to the criticisms, continues to fund newer editions of these “fuzzy math” programs, and awards multimillion dollar grants to distribute them to schools." One of many examples is the $35 million NSF grant to “System-wide Change for All Learners and Educators” (SCALE).[13] In addition to other activities, SCALE promotes IMP, CMP, EM and TERC even in California where those books are not state approved. These textbooks lack the mathematical content necessary to meet the state’s K-12 math standards. National Science Foundation Systemic Initiatives: How a small amount of federal money promotes ill-designed mathematics and science programs in K-12 and undermines local control of education; by Michael McKeown, David Klein, and Chris Patterson. Chapter 13 of What's at Stake in the K-12 Standards Wars - A Primer for Educational Policy Makers, edited by Sandra Stotsky (Peter Lang, New York, 2000). Many states and districts have accepted NSF Systemic Initiatives grants to make "fundamental, comprehensive, and coordinated changes in science, mathematics, and technology education through attendant changes in policy, resource allocation, governance, management, content and conduct." This article argues that it is all for the worse, and looks at the dynamics behind acceptance of these grants... http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/chap13.pdf -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com loyaltolivonia Posted: Mar 19 2007, 11:31 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 My s-i-l who lives in Plymouth just told me yesterday that Plymouth has decided to phase out their EM program as well. It is not working. Cecelia--you live in Plymouth. Is this true? new school mom Posted: Mar 19 2007, 12:21 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Mar 19 2007, 10:54 AM) October 11, 2003 Riverhead Central School District has received an important new grant to help enhance its middle school math curriculum. An $11.5 million grant by the National Science Foundation (NSF) is to be distributed over the course of five years to a consortium of ten schools on Long Island (Riverhead, Amityville, Brentwood, Freeport, Hempstead, Longwood, Uniondale, Westbury, William Floyd and Wyandanch). The NSF grant will be administered by Hofstra and Stony Brook Universites and include services from Brookhaven National Laboratory. Do you know anything about the districts in this post??? I do, so I am wondering if you so as well. Are these districts that are wealthy or poor, high performers or low performers, what is the socioecomonic make up of these districs?? Did they need the grant money. Copying, cutting, and pasting blurbs on the internet, potentially taken out of context (I don't know that to be true, but I don't know it to be false either) only serves to raise fear of the unknown in people. As for these districts-at least half of them, are low income, large minority population districts on Long Island. They are traditionally low performing districts. How do I know--I grew up there. Could this be the motivation for wanting the grant money?? Grant1 Posted: Mar 19 2007, 12:36 PM We have just begun to fight! Group: Member Posts: 3,167 Member No.: 117 Joined: 14-November 05 QUOTE (new school mom @ Mar 19 2007, 12:21 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Mar 19 2007, 10:54 AM) October 11, 2003 Riverhead Central School District has received an important new grant to help enhance its middle school math curriculum. An $11.5 million grant by the National Science Foundation (NSF) is to be distributed over the course of five years to a consortium of ten schools on Long Island (Riverhead, Amityville, Brentwood, Freeport, Hempstead, Longwood, Uniondale, Westbury, William Floyd and Wyandanch). The NSF grant will be administered by Hofstra and Stony Brook Universites and include services from Brookhaven National Laboratory. Do you know anything about the districts in this post??? I do, so I am wondering if you so as well. Are these districts that are wealthy or poor, high performers or low performers, what is the socioecomonic make up of these districs?? Did they need the grant money. Copying, cutting, and pasting blurbs on the internet, potentially taken out of context (I don't know that to be true, but I don't know it to be false either) only serves to raise fear of the unknown in people. As for these districts-at least half of them, are low income, large minority population districts on Long Island. They are traditionally low performing districts. How do I know--I grew up there. Could this be the motivation for wanting the grant money?? Accepting grant monies at the risk of students and their academic achievement is never a good idea, regardless of how badly you may need the money. It sends the message that money is more important than education. It should never be a compromise. -------------------- Elect Patrice Mang, Eileen McDonnell and Steve Futrell on MAY 8th!!! f11 Posted: Mar 19 2007, 12:43 PM LPS, transportation for all Group: Super Moderators Posts: 948 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-October 05 QUOTE (loyaltolivonia @ Mar 19 2007, 12:31 PM) My s-i-l who lives in Plymouth just told me yesterday that Plymouth has decided to phase out their EM program as well. It is not working. Cecelia--you live in Plymouth. Is this true? Now wouldn't that be a big revelation?!!... BoaterDan Posted: Mar 19 2007, 12:56 PM Principal Group: Member Posts: 585 Member No.: 353 Joined: 15-March 06 QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Mar 17 2007, 07:40 PM) QUOTE (cecelia @ Mar 17 2007, 02:39 PM) QUOTE (Friday @ Mar 17 2007, 08:54 AM) And thanks for pointing out that there is another side at all. LPS never would have. If you talk to Jennifer Abler she will tell you both sides. Both sides were considered before the decision was made. While I am certain that Ms. Abler is a wonderful person, I do not believe that she has the qualifications to have a deep enough understanding of advanced math and how this program will not adequately prepare kids to meet the demands of Algebra and beyond. I feel much more comfortable reading the reviews of reform math by prof's from MIT and Stanford. Right. I think if a person is going to publicly represent a choice of such magnititude, she owes it to the listeners to go deeper into those details as part of the presentation. I had absolutely no reason to believe or doubt her qualifications or analysis before this presentation. But now that I see there are districts all over the country abandoning this program, that is is essentially prohibited at the state level in some cases, and that many extremely highly credentialed professionals are highly critical of it... I am left to wonder about the process she went through. Along side the critics, you could no doubt find a parade of people who think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread - but the problem for me is that's all we saw in the presentation. Mrs. Markurian's attempts to bring some of the controversy into the conversation were noticeably ignored. Objections and concerns of the community were blown off by King. So no, what am I to think? At the very least it is only logical to wonder if in fact the "other side" was being fed to her by the vendor. Did she call up any of those professors opposed to EM and discuss it with them - or did the EM vendor just go through their mock coverage of those objects that was really meant only to garner "honesty points". If she made those calls, then what is superior about LPS that we won't suffer from the fate of the districts who have abandoned it as a failure? Did she get those experts to concede we would likely be an exception to the problems? new school mom Posted: Mar 19 2007, 01:57 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (Grant1 @ Mar 19 2007, 12:36 PM) QUOTE (new school mom @ Mar 19 2007, 12:21 PM) QUOTE (ILIkeLI @ Mar 19 2007, 10:54 AM) October 11, 2003 Riverhead Central School District has received an important new grant to help enhance its middle school math curriculum. An $11.5 million grant by the National Science Foundation (NSF) is to be distributed over the course of five years to a consortium of ten schools on Long Island (Riverhead, Amityville, Brentwood, Freeport, Hempstead, Longwood, Uniondale, Westbury, William Floyd and Wyandanch). The NSF grant will be administered by Hofstra and Stony Brook Universites and include services from Brookhaven National Laboratory. Do you know anything about the districts in this post??? I do, so I am wondering if you so as well. Are these districts that are wealthy or poor, high performers or low performers, what is the socioecomonic make up of these districs?? Did they need the grant money. Copying, cutting, and pasting blurbs on the internet, potentially taken out of context (I don't know that to be true, but I don't know it to be false either) only serves to raise fear of the unknown in people. As for these districts-at least half of them, are low income, large minority population districts on Long Island. They are traditionally low performing districts. How do I know--I grew up there. Could this be the motivation for wanting the grant money?? Accepting grant monies at the risk of students and their academic achievement is never a good idea, regardless of how badly you may need the money. It sends the message that money is more important than education. It should never be a compromise. Totally Agree with you Grant 1, my point being if we cut and paste stuff from the internet with out sufficient background information and potentially taking it out of context are we getting the full picture?? That was my point. I do not judge or question the motives of these districts. new school mom Posted: Mar 19 2007, 02:09 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 150 Member No.: 294 Joined: 27-January 06 QUOTE (new school mom @ Mar 19 2007, 01:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
| LPS Reformer | May 16 2007, 08:43 PM Post #20 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Old Forum 18 cecelia Posted: Mar 19 2007, 07:31 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 203 Member No.: 495 Joined: 12-December 06 QUOTE (loyaltolivonia @ Mar 19 2007, 11:31 AM) My s-i-l who lives in Plymouth just told me yesterday that Plymouth has decided to phase out their EM program as well. It is not working. Cecelia--you live in Plymouth. Is this true? My understanding is that EM has recently been renewed by the district. ILIkeLI Posted: Mar 19 2007, 07:39 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 QUOTE (cecelia @ Mar 19 2007, 07:31 PM) QUOTE (loyaltolivonia @ Mar 19 2007, 11:31 AM) My s-i-l who lives in Plymouth just told me yesterday that Plymouth has decided to phase out their EM program as well. It is not working. Cecelia--you live in Plymouth. Is this true? My understanding is that EM has recently been renewed by the district. Does PCCS get NSF grant money to use the program? -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com cecelia Posted: Mar 19 2007, 07:49 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 203 Member No.: 495 Joined: 12-December 06 I don't know about a grant . I don't think so but that is a good question. Jimid Posted: Mar 19 2007, 07:58 PM Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 3,064 Member No.: 1 Joined: 5-October 05 A Larry Martin ran for the PCS BOE... http://www.plymouthtwp.org/Services/Clerk/...sults060502.htm Bill Williamson Posted: Mar 19 2007, 08:04 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 78 Member No.: 406 Joined: 13-May 06 QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Mar 19 2007, 09:27 AM) QUOTE (f11 @ Mar 19 2007, 09:12 AM) Something I have been wondering....Did the district enter into any sort of contract for the use of "everyday math" for a certain number of years?...What if the program is deemed unsuccessful and we are contractually bound to keep buying the materials?.. I assume the district always has the ability to change to another program, but since we are making a more than $400k up front investment in the books and materials (in addition to the yearly cost of student workbooks,) it would be a shame to change after a short time. Is anyone familiar with how the EM purchase agreement is set up? Is it possible to cancel this order prior to delivery? Is there a restocking charge if the order is cancelled prior to delivery? - In addition (no pun intended) to being very expensive, it seems to be under a lot of scrutinty as to it's benifits. What were our options at the time this was approved? How many math books are usually replacd each year at these grade levels? How do the rank and file feel about having to learn how to teach again? What kind of support will the teachers be getting from their building administrators for addressing the numerous questons parents will be having? - On a personal note, it is my belief that homework should reinforce what the kids were taught in school. The kids should not have to "involve" the parents. Parents are to provide some guidance to help the student learn to learn at "their" own pace and not at the parents pace. Jimid Posted: Mar 19 2007, 08:30 PM Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 3,064 Member No.: 1 Joined: 5-October 05 I will say this. It is nice to have a topic with so much input that has nothing to do with the Legacy Initiative . I hope we have many more in the future, because they can only help us all understand what is happening in our district. NFarquharson Posted: Mar 19 2007, 08:56 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 4,311 Member No.: 103 Joined: 9-November 05 QUOTE (Bill Williamson @ Mar 19 2007, 08:04 PM) QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Mar 19 2007, 09:27 AM) QUOTE (f11 @ Mar 19 2007, 09:12 AM) Something I have been wondering....Did the district enter into any sort of contract for the use of "everyday math" for a certain number of years?...What if the program is deemed unsuccessful and we are contractually bound to keep buying the materials?.. I assume the district always has the ability to change to another program, but since we are making a more than $400k up front investment in the books and materials (in addition to the yearly cost of student workbooks,) it would be a shame to change after a short time. Is anyone familiar with how the EM purchase agreement is set up? Is it possible to cancel this order prior to delivery? Is there a restocking charge if the order is cancelled prior to delivery? - In addition (no pun intended) to being very expensive, it seems to be under a lot of scrutinty as to it's benifits. What were our options at the time this was approved? How many math books are usually replacd each year at these grade levels? How do the rank and file feel about having to learn how to teach again? What kind of support will the teachers be getting from their building administrators for addressing the numerous questons parents will be having? - On a personal note, it is my belief that homework should reinforce what the kids were taught in school. The kids should not have to "involve" the parents. Parents are to provide some guidance to help the student learn to learn at "their" own pace and not at the parents pace. I don't know the answers, but I sure do agree with your last statement. "On a personal note, it is my belief that homework should reinforce what the kids were taught in school. The kids should not have to "involve" the parents. Parents are to provide some guidance to help the student learn to learn at "their" own pace and not at the parents pace." I just do not understand the whole idea of parents being so "involved" that they have to sit down and do homework with their children on an ongoing basis. Part of my job as a parent is to teach my children to be independant, self-motivated and organized. If I constantly do everything for them or monitor everything they ever do, it seems to me that I would be teaching them a very different lesson! -------------------- Mang, McDonnell and Futrell for LPS School Board. Vote May 8! Sinking in LI Posted: Mar 20 2007, 07:52 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 61 Member No.: 42 Joined: 28-October 05 QUOTE (Bill Williamson @ Mar 19 2007, 08:04 PM) [/QUOTE] Is anyone familiar with how the EM purchase agreement is set up? Is it possible to cancel this order prior to delivery? Is there a restocking charge if the order is cancelled prior to delivery? - In addition (no pun intended) to being very expensive, it seems to be under a lot of scrutinty as to it's benifits. Keep in mind that the cost of $400,000 + was for the initial year ONLY. Every additional year that this math system is used, the District must spend about $80,000 for the student workbooks to go with the text books. If LPS decides to use this math for 10+ years, then the cost of the workbooks is twice the cost of the initial investment in text books and materials. loyaltolivonia Posted: Mar 21 2007, 09:39 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 QUOTE (NFarquharson @ Mar 19 2007, 09:56 PM) I don't know the answers, but I sure do agree with your last statement. "On a personal note, it is my belief that homework should reinforce what the kids were taught in school. The kids should not have to "involve" the parents. Parents are to provide some guidance to help the student learn to learn at "their" own pace and not at the parents pace." I just do not understand the whole idea of parents being so "involved" that they have to sit down and do homework with their children on an ongoing basis. Part of my job as a parent is to teach my children to be independant, self-motivated and organized. If I constantly do everything for them or monitor everything they ever do, it seems to me that I would be teaching them a very different lesson! I'm sure we are not the only parents who have heard at every curriculum night, at every grade level, from every teacher "PLEASE do not do their homework and projects for them. They need to learn responsibility and learn how to manage their work." If I have to read up on how my child needs to run through a problem, then show them how to do it, that is ME doing their homework, IMO!! c3hull Posted: Mar 21 2007, 09:56 AM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,422 Member No.: 17 Joined: 25-October 05 I talked to a friend of mine who is a teacher in another district. She decided to homeschool 2 of her children(in grades K-6 of course!) because of the Legacy. I was asking her some questions and she told me that pretty much all advise out there for homeschooling parents was "Stay away from Chicago/Everyday Math." She went on to say she couldn't believe the Board voted to implement this program with all of the negative reports about it. Go figure, that's our Board! -------------------- VOTE FOR CHANGE ON MAY 8TH; VOTE FOR: MANG, MCDONNELL, & FUTRELL Jimid Posted: Mar 21 2007, 08:50 PM Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 3,064 Member No.: 1 Joined: 5-October 05 I like to help with homework, but I never do it for them. If they are struggling with a concept like long division, like we did recently, it is good to help them. It took about an hour and a half to get it down. We made our own problems, then when it was time to finish the homework, that was done on their own. How will LPS help with the adjustment for parents who do not know what is being taught? mouse2 Posted: Mar 21 2007, 09:56 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 318 Joined: 25-February 06 QUOTE (Jimid @ Mar 21 2007, 08:50 PM) I like to help with homework, but I never do it for them. If they are struggling with a concept like long division, like we did recently, it is good to help them. It took about an hour and a half to get it down. We made our own problems, then when it was time to finish the homework, that was done on their own. How will LPS help with the adjustment for parents who do not know what is being taught? They won't. They did not care last year when 6 sets of parents asked for help with this "thing" call EM. I really hope you have a better teacher then we had last year in 4 grade. I still would like to know what they are going to do when a teacher is out sick because that also happen to us last year and the sub did not know how to do it or teach it even with the teacher book. Corwin Posted: Mar 21 2007, 10:43 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 186 Member No.: 369 Joined: 24-March 06 I know at our school last year the 5th grade teacher had several parent meetings to help with the math. It was for all 5th grade parents and not just in her hoomeroom. I think she has done the same thing at Riley. She is a quality teacher. plmask Posted: Mar 22 2007, 06:07 AM Principal Group: Members Posts: 265 Member No.: 307 Joined: 16-February 06 I remember that, all the 5th grade teachers there were awesome! ILIkeLI Posted: Mar 29 2007, 04:13 PM Principal Group: Members Posts: 875 Member No.: 382 Joined: 7-April 06 http://www.lewrockwell.com/taylor/taylor14.html Short-Changed By New-New Math by Linda Schrock Taylor The public education cartel would gain much by using methods from business and industry, but instead refuses to learn from others, or even from its own mistakes. Decisions in public instruction are rarely, if ever, based on pilot studies; control groups; customer (pupil) needs and (parental) satisfaction. FedEd does not discriminate against new, untested methods, even those lacking any sign of intelligent life or logic. A new method might short-change, or even destroy children, but is put into wide usage, nevertheless. This indiscriminate acceptance of experimental curriculum has resulted in the depreciation of academic standards, and achievement. When products are sent to mailboxes, handed to shoppers, or offered at very low prices, consumers are given chances to try new items with little or no risk to household budgets; producers are given opportunities to assess follow-up sales and make decisions regarding marketing, production and distribution. It has been decades since my parents received a free bar of Dove soap, and purchased a 19-cent bottle of Western salad dressing, but our households are still faithful to those products. The business strategy worked and benefited those on both sides of the exchange. Such a process does not exist in public education, so parents and taxpayers rarely have knowledge of the educational 'samples' being considered; no idea if the new product or idea is educationally valuable and has been objectively and rigorously tested for soundness. Schools foolishly make decisions to remove successful curriculum which has passed the test of time, and replace it with experimental curriculum which has had no rigorous pilot studies, passed no peer reviews, and could actually compromise a child's educational opportunities. Such decisions would not be tolerated in the free market, and worse yet, these anti-consumer, anti-education, decisions are not even limited to public schools. We removed our son from public schooling in the middle of third grade due to the failure of his school to meet his educational needs. We then enrolled David in a Christian school where he received the most outstanding math instruction that I have ever witnessed. He attended a 3rd/4th grade split classroom for one and one-half years, and his fantastic teacher, Mr. Warners, taught the processes, logic, and marvels of mathematics. David made up for time lost in the public school, and learned concepts and processes far above the expectations for those grade levels. (David is now a 9th grader and has been homeschooled for 3½ years using Saxon Math materials. He has completed Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Algebra II, a separate Geometry course, and is half-way through Advanced Math: trigonometry and pre-calculus. In each of these classes David has frequently announced, "Mr. Warners already taught this to me!" David was able to prove each claim – he did, indeed, already possess the higher skills.) Parochial school; successful math curriculum; wonderful teacher; educationally advanced students; happy parents – few schools could hope for such a positive response to their programming. Then, the Chicago Everyday Math salesperson appeared on the scene. This person must have been very skilled and manipulative, a "Professor" Harold Hill (The Music Man) type, for the school administrators were deceived into believing that this strange new math program would improve upon the teaching of Mr. Warners. The administrators decided to toss out successful curriculum, and replace it with the infamous Chicago Math. Chicago Math comes from those same people who replaced the successful phonetic teaching of reading, with sight words, 'Dick and Jane,' and whole language. Astute teachers and parents are angrily aware of how the Dewey methods have really 'fixed' reading instruction. It was unfathomable that any educator would trust the Dewey folks to next 'fix' math instruction. (Odd…my father always taught me, "If it isn't broken; don't fix it.") So David moved up to fifth grade but down to Chicago Everyday Math. David's math skills declined with each passing month. He lost all automaticity in division processes; developed calculator dependency; and received low grades. His prior 'delight' in mathematics turned to scorn and unhappiness. His workbook was a mess but the teacher never checked them, so kids, using ink pens, worked a couple examples, copied the rest from the board, then scribbled or drew pictures. The poor grades turned out to be my fault – I realized too late that the lousy "Study Links" that I threw away every night, considering them some kind of foolish busywork, were actually the homework assignments. David said students were threatened with, "If you kids don't behave and work, I'll get those old math books out of storage and you'll see what math really involves!" David kept wishing the teacher would make good with her threat and put the old math books back into use. By second semester, David was pleading with us to homeschool him and my husband decided to take early retirement to stay home and teach this intelligent, curious son. Many people, concerned about public education, wonder why parents continue to enroll their children in public schools and trust these failing institutions to make solid, scholarly decisions, especially in light of track records and bad press. The reasons for this 'seeming' parental trust are varied, but usually fall into one or more of these categories: The parents are too busy to be bothered with parenting or its underlying responsibilities, and are just happy to see their children enrolled for full days – someplace/anyplace – to end the costs of day care. The parents lack any other choice, and feel unable, financially or academically, to homeschool. The parents were educated in public schools and are undereducated, themselves. They do not recognize problems and inconsistencies when they see them, or when they do notice and object to the dumbing down of their children, they are unable to effectively express their concerns, and argue their points. (Someplace I read that the Graduating Class of 1967 was the last lucky group of students. I suspect the statement may be quite accurate.) The districts keep the parents unaware; disguise true failure rates with inflated grades; and discourage any questions from alert, concerned parents and taxpayers. (The usual line from administrators is, "You are the only parent who has complained about this." Don't believe it!) At least one district published course descriptions that specified "Saxon Math" books as part of the math curriculum. The district does own Saxon math books, but those are kept in the storeroom while progressive fads fill the instructional hours. Parents do not notice the 'bait and switch' unless they are especially attentive. The state departments of education cover up real failure rates in math instruction by constantly realigning (i.e., lowering) the criteria and score ranges to show 'acceptable' skill assessment and reporting. It is my understanding that a student in Michigan can earn the coveted "1" ranking on the MEAP test with a sixty percent (60%) accuracy rate. (In my special education classes, 59% is a failing score.) We have been told that the MEAP is being rewritten and that criteria will again being 'realigned.' One can bet that the standards are not being raised. It is difficult for me to observe this from inside the system, yet be powerless to make any modifications and improvements. I have voiced numerous concerns and complaints. When I read of new statistics regarding declining math scores due to high failure rates involved with the new-new math curriculums, I provide copies to administrators and math teachers. My concerns are ignored. I never understood why schools would stubbornly continue to use inferior materials and methods in the face of repeated, public embarrassment over the failure of math instruction. It seemed inexplicable. However, one day I overheard math teachers discussing the seven (7) year contract that districts sign with Chicago Math, and learned the answer to my question. "Do you mean that, if Chicago Math curriculum fails to even adequately, let alone expertly, serve the needs of our students, we cannot stop using the materials because someone in the district signed a contract?" I asked. The answer was in the affirmative, leaving me shocked and angry, convinced that the individual who betrayed students and parents in this way should be fired and sued. Consider the implications of a national educational philosophy that not only condones the use of substandard instruction and materials, but participates in the buying and selling of contracts that limit and diminish the educational opportunities made available to the very children the district is being paid to educate. How dare anyone, let alone a textbook company, demand a seven-year contract for the right to control the educational offerings to children? How dare the contract holder then provide materials that bring about a rate of failure so rapid that state departments of education will obfuscate and realign statistical information? How dare any district – public, private, or parochial – sign such a contract, without full parental knowledge and written approval, then provide our children with experimental instruction that appears to be detrimental – both to their current well-being, as well as to their potential for successful advanced education and employment? Indentured servants received better terms. They agreed to the contract of their own free will; they understood the terms of the contract; and they could expect their freedom at the conclusion of the contract. Our contract-educated children will never gain their freedom, for the years of dumbed-down curriculum and instruction will have damaged their minds beyond repair. These students will never recover from their loss, and will never reach their God-given potential. I cannot help but agree with John Taylor Gatto and Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt – these decisions to permanently damage the minds of our population must be purposefully made by someone sitting in some unseen place of power. So many bad decisions in public education, across so many decades, with many 'new' methods simply being earlier mistakes recycled under new names, could not be a coincidence. There has to be planning and purpose behind the movement, and the goal must be to prepare our children for lives at the lower strata of society. Those unseen 'powers that be' have probably decided that their own children, educated in their privately supported prep schools, will be numerous enough to serve the mathematical and scientific needs of the Collective State. Our children need not apply. Our children are being short-changed, and the contracts that deny them the right to fine educational opportunities such as Mr. Warners presented, seem to be binding. Our children are growing up uneducated, illiterate, mathematically retarded. Our children are expected to set no higher goal in life than to labor in one of the numerical job classifications detailed in the School-to-Work legislation and follow-up documentation. Those who created those job lists – want laborers with capabilities that are limited to doing simple, 'everyday math' problems. Uneducated, limited children will not develop into adults who might threaten the power structure or the class system. Our children, our entire culture, are being short-changed and slowly being destroyed – by illiteracy and by math standards, lowered and controlled, by contract. Become comfortable with the Brave New-New World, and the New-New Math, or opt out and homeschool so you can teach your children well. Soon there will be no middle road; no fence to straddle. The decisions, the responsibilities, are ours. March 11, 2003 Linda Schrock Taylor [send her mail] lives in Michigan. She is a free-lance writer and the owner of "The Learning Clinic," where real reading, and real math, are taught effectively and efficiently. -------------------- Don't Fear Change...Embrace it May 8 www.stevefutrell.com www.electpatricemang.com www.eileenmcdonnell.com Mrs.M Posted: Mar 29 2007, 11:25 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 849 Member No.: 49 Joined: 29-October 05 http://www.lewrockwell.com/taylor/taylor-arch.html a phenomenal writer, creative and thought provoking. Linda Schrock Taylor Elisa Posted: Mar 30 2007, 01:09 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 607 Member No.: 64 Joined: 31-October 05 The Schrock article really hits home for me in a huge way. We are finishing up our first year (we're out in May) with reform math and I can't say it loudly or strongly enough that these programs are absolutely awful. At this point in time we are considering tutoring from Kumon or choosing from one of the private tutors on the 3 page list the district sent home. Yes, not only did they send a list but I was also alerted to the fact that parents book them up quickly. My third grader has not mastered any of her multiplication facts. We spend so much time on the math homeowork that has involved utterly useless exercises such as cutting, pasting, drawing and writing down thoughts and ideas about math that we have scarcely had the time to plug the gaps with real math at home. Also, you don't fully realize how lacking your child's skills are until they have to complete other assignments that involve basic math facts. For example, we recently had a section on measurement. When I say section I mean that it was covered in 2-3 days time tops as they move at a dizzying pace. The kids needed to convert various measurements such as inches to feet, feet to yard, yards to miles and so on. A work sheet that should have taken 10 minutes at the most turned into an hour long exercise of frustration. When all that you have been given are alternative algorithms based on arrays, grids and other drawings, quick, basic multiplication isn't possible and your work becomes filled with error. Helping her with that assignment made it abundantly clear that she knew neither her basic facts nor the coveted "concept" behind multiplication that is so highly touted in these programs. Honestly, she is most likely a year behind peers with traditional math programs in terms of skills acquired and mastered. This is largely due to the "spiral" nature of the reform program. Remember, mastery isn't expected at any set time. They move quickly through topics and revisit them later. For us, this has only created more frustration. When your child doesn't "get it" the first time around, the second exposure only brings more confusion. Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with the charges that reform math doesn't prepare kids for higher level math courses. My own child is not adequately prepared to move to the next level. The kids in her class that don't receive tutoring this summer will not be prepared to advance in math. The reform curriculum has not given them the skills to accurately and quickly add, subtract and multiply. Without those skills double digit multiplication, division, percentages and decimals will be extremely difficult. Overall, I just haven't seen any benefit or positive of reform math. loyaltolivonia Posted: Mar 30 2007, 01:59 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 1,626 Member No.: 214 Joined: 10-December 05 Elisa--This must be so terrible for your daughter (and you and your husband, as well). I think I'm correct in saying I know your daughter and also know that she was at the top of her game here last year! Why else would her teachers have suggested she test for Webster? My son is in third grade at Randolph right now and has mastered his multiplication facts and the teacher is moving into division. I am SO glad we made it through mult. and div. BEFORE EM is introduced disrict-wide next fall. At least he has his basic skills down pat and we will help him through whatever lies ahead. I will say that I am very nervous in thinking that I will not be able to help him next year with this EM Elisa Posted: Mar 30 2007, 05:11 PM Principal Group: Super Moderators Posts: 607 Member No.: 64 Joined: 31-October 05 loyal- you're right, she was always very competent in math. It has been really distressing to see the decline this year. When I help her with her homework and watch her use the techniques taught in class, it is like watching a much younger child attempt to solve problems that should be automatic for her age. Something as simple as 6x3 turns into a lengthy art project with a full paragraph of explanation. I think that she would be mortified with embarassment if her friends from LPS ever saw the way she completes math. Your son will be in a good position having already mastered his facts. Focus on division over the summer and he should be largely unaffected by EM. At this point, we pick and choose the math homework that is beneficial and try to focus as much as possible with basic skills. The teacher completely understands and is supportive. She has told us that she isn't allowed to vary the math instruction in any manner but also clued us in to the Singapore Math Series that she uses at home with her own kids. |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |
