Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Everyday Math loses another district; Bridgewater-Raritan NJ
Topic Started: Mar 2 2009, 09:45 PM (142 Views)
Larry Martin
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
There is a long battle behind this one, including getting on the school board and getting a new superintendent and assistant superintendent. This NJ district looked beyond their inadequate state standards and did what is right for their children.

There is a 220 page report written by the math committee here: http://www.brrsd.k12.nj.us/files/filesystem/K-6%20Math%20Program%20Evaluation.pdf

The short version powerpoint is here: http://www.brrsd.k12.nj.us/files/filesystem/Math%20Program%20Evaluation%20v%202.ppt



Here's the newspaper article:

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20090227/NEWS/902270359

February 27, 2009

Bridgewater school board votes to change from controversial math program

By KARA L. RICHARDSON
Staff Writer

Children in grades K-6 could learn math a new way starting with the 2009-2010 school year after officials decided to stop using the controversial Every Day Math program.

The Board of Education voted to begin using Harcourt School Publishing, or HSP, Math, pending the passage of the 2009-2010 school-district budget. HSP will replace Every Day Math, a program the district has used for the past decade, and which has drawn the ire of many parents who believe it caused their children to fall behind in math classes.

HSP Math is more in line with traditional mathematics programs and includes methods such as algorithms and memorization. Assistant Superintendent Cheryl Dyer and Superintendent Michael Schilder both said HSP Math is more balanced because it gives a good foundation of skills to all levels of learning.

Schilder said discussions about Every Day Math's place in the district have been ongoing for at least three years. Even when the district supplemented that curriculum with more traditional algorithms and memorization, concerns about the program remained, he said.

Dyer said the committee charged to study math in grades K-6 convened in September and met several times. The committee included 35 teachers, representatives from each school and grade level, as well as special education.

"We made every effort to keep it balanced," Dyer said.

DOING HOMEWORK

Cc11.1,235,8.7,9.8,8.4;Committee members were told to analyze research, including the National Mathematics Advisory Panel report, and the district's Every Day Math report — which suggested the district seek other math programs for its K-6 students — as well as state standardized test scores.

Some teachers in the district liked the hands-on parts of Every Day Math program, and 72 percent of educators in the district thought the program prepared students for the next grade level.

"I think that's too low. It should be 100 percent feeling their students are prepared for the next grade level," Dyer said.

Many in the district were concerned that students were falling behind under Every Day Math, which is a comprehensive program that uses everyday examples to teach math concepts. It differs from a traditional program because it:

# Uses calculators from the beginning of the education process (even in kindergarten)

# Has a spiral method of teaching that revisits at each level, so each school year begins with a review of what was taught before

# Uses games, puzzles and activities to illustrate concepts.

As Dyer and the committee worked to understand "The Math Wars" — a national debate about how math should be taught — she said the panel concluded that there should be balance in the district's program. They reviewed nine programs — including Every Day Math — and the unanimous decision was to switch to HSP Math. Schilder said he enthusiastically endorsed the decision.

"HSP Math is not just equal to Every Day Math. It's not just better than Every Day Math. It is far superior to Every Day Math," Schilder said.

FACTS AND FIGURES

Cc11.1,235,8.7,9.8,8.4;The cost to implement the new program is $509,987.66, Schilder said. Each year, which would include consumable items such as workbooks, is expected to cost the district $55,378, plus the cost of copying materials for students.

Schilder said the district budgets approximately $90,000 each year for Every Day Math, so there will be some savings on an annual basis from the new program.

"I've been speechless since this five-inch binder (the K-6 Math study with recommendations to switch to HSP Math) arrived at my home. I could not be more proud to be sitting on this board tonight," said Board of Education member Jill Gladstone, an outspoken critic of the Every Day Math program.

Carol Rounds, whose son is in fourth grade, said she first complained about Every Day Math in 2006.

Rounds thanked the board, the committee and the administration for their decisions, and thanked Gladstone for her persistence on the matter.

Robyn Wright, who has a fourth-grade daughter and sixth-grade son, added her praise to those who orchestrated the study, and the decision to switch programs.

"This wasn't about winning an ideological battle," Wright said. "It was about what was right for the kids."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Whatever
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Larry Martin
Mar 2 2009, 09:45 PM
There is a long battle behind this one, including getting on the school board and getting a new superintendent and assistant superintendent. This NJ district looked beyond their inadequate state standards and did what is right for their children.

There is a 220 page report written by the math committee here: http://www.brrsd.k12.nj.us/files/filesystem/K-6%20Math%20Program%20Evaluation.pdf

The short version powerpoint is here: http://www.brrsd.k12.nj.us/files/filesystem/Math%20Program%20Evaluation%20v%202.ppt



Here's the newspaper article:

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20090227/NEWS/902270359

February 27, 2009

Bridgewater school board votes to change from controversial math program

By KARA L. RICHARDSON
Staff Writer

Children in grades K-6 could learn math a new way starting with the 2009-2010 school year after officials decided to stop using the controversial Every Day Math program.

The Board of Education voted to begin using Harcourt School Publishing, or HSP, Math, pending the passage of the 2009-2010 school-district budget. HSP will replace Every Day Math, a program the district has used for the past decade, and which has drawn the ire of many parents who believe it caused their children to fall behind in math classes.

HSP Math is more in line with traditional mathematics programs and includes methods such as algorithms and memorization. Assistant Superintendent Cheryl Dyer and Superintendent Michael Schilder both said HSP Math is more balanced because it gives a good foundation of skills to all levels of learning.

Schilder said discussions about Every Day Math's place in the district have been ongoing for at least three years. Even when the district supplemented that curriculum with more traditional algorithms and memorization, concerns about the program remained, he said.

Dyer said the committee charged to study math in grades K-6 convened in September and met several times. The committee included 35 teachers, representatives from each school and grade level, as well as special education.

"We made every effort to keep it balanced," Dyer said.

DOING HOMEWORK

Cc11.1,235,8.7,9.8,8.4;Committee members were told to analyze research, including the National Mathematics Advisory Panel report, and the district's Every Day Math report — which suggested the district seek other math programs for its K-6 students — as well as state standardized test scores.

Some teachers in the district liked the hands-on parts of Every Day Math program, and 72 percent of educators in the district thought the program prepared students for the next grade level.

"I think that's too low. It should be 100 percent feeling their students are prepared for the next grade level," Dyer said.

Many in the district were concerned that students were falling behind under Every Day Math, which is a comprehensive program that uses everyday examples to teach math concepts. It differs from a traditional program because it:

# Uses calculators from the beginning of the education process (even in kindergarten)

# Has a spiral method of teaching that revisits at each level, so each school year begins with a review of what was taught before

# Uses games, puzzles and activities to illustrate concepts.

As Dyer and the committee worked to understand "The Math Wars" — a national debate about how math should be taught — she said the panel concluded that there should be balance in the district's program. They reviewed nine programs — including Every Day Math — and the unanimous decision was to switch to HSP Math. Schilder said he enthusiastically endorsed the decision.

"HSP Math is not just equal to Every Day Math. It's not just better than Every Day Math. It is far superior to Every Day Math," Schilder said.

FACTS AND FIGURES

Cc11.1,235,8.7,9.8,8.4;The cost to implement the new program is $509,987.66, Schilder said. Each year, which would include consumable items such as workbooks, is expected to cost the district $55,378, plus the cost of copying materials for students.

Schilder said the district budgets approximately $90,000 each year for Every Day Math, so there will be some savings on an annual basis from the new program.

"I've been speechless since this five-inch binder (the K-6 Math study with recommendations to switch to HSP Math) arrived at my home. I could not be more proud to be sitting on this board tonight," said Board of Education member Jill Gladstone, an outspoken critic of the Every Day Math program.

Carol Rounds, whose son is in fourth grade, said she first complained about Every Day Math in 2006.

Rounds thanked the board, the committee and the administration for their decisions, and thanked Gladstone for her persistence on the matter.

Robyn Wright, who has a fourth-grade daughter and sixth-grade son, added her praise to those who orchestrated the study, and the decision to switch programs.

"This wasn't about winning an ideological battle," Wright said. "It was about what was right for the kids."
That's New Jersey. What do they know? In Michigan, EM is raising elementary test scores on the MEAP and that's all that matters. Who cares if high school scores are in the toilet? It's RESEARCH-BASED. Forget about the RESEARCH that shows it doesn't prepare kids for high school and college. 100% proficiency ( MI standards) by 2014 is the goal.
Edited by Whatever, Mar 3 2009, 08:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry Martin
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Whatever
Mar 3 2009, 08:57 AM
That's New Jersey. What do they know? In Michigan, EM is raising elementary test scores on the MEAP and that's all that matters. Who cares if high school scores are in the toilet? It's RESEARCH-BASED. Forget about the RESEARCH that shows it doesn't prepare kids for high school and college. 100% proficiency ( MI standards) by 2014 is the goal.
The full report has some good information. The elementary teachers favored the program and thought it prepared students well. They really liked the 'hands-on' approach. The anonymous middle school and high school surveys showed otherwise.

They had been using EM for around 12 years without any reviews.


Members from the same group are turning around the NJ math standards. They were up for review and were being updated to be fuzzy. The group was very vocal, testified to the State board and now the new NJ draft standards are more aligned with California, Massachusetts and the National Math Panel.

http://njworldclass math.webs. com/


So by the end of it all, the school will have good math and the state will follow.

ps. Pittsburgh is moving EM to a supplement only role starting in 2009-2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IlikeLIvonia
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08107/873663-298.stm

City schools considering change in math books

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

By Joe Smydo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pittsburgh Public Schools officials want to buy new math textbooks for the elementary and middle grades, pilot an overhaul of the district's gifted program and better accommodate the growing number of students learning English as a second language.

The school board Education Committee last night heard administrators' proposal to diminish the role of the controversial Everyday Math program in the elementary grades.

A task force recommended using the latest version of Everyday Math in early-childhood classes but no longer use it as the main textbook for kindergarten through grade five.

The group instead recommended using "enVisionMATH," a product of Pearson Education Co. Everyday Math, published by Wright Group/McGraw Hill, would be used as a supplement.

The district would do away with the Harcourt Math program used in elementary classes at about 10 schools. In 2005, Harcourt was introduced on a trial basis amid complaints about Everyday Math.

The task force recommended the continued use of another controversial program -- Connected Math, published by Pearson -- in the middle grades. But the group recommended using other Pearson books to help shape instruction.

Jerri Lippert, executive director of curriculum, instruction and professional development, said the changes would bring a balanced approach to instruction. Some parents and officials had complained the current programs pay too little attention to skill development and overemphasized theory.

"I think this is a really good opportunity for us to get math right," board member Jean Fink said.

The books would be used as part of a new math curriculum to be written next school year. Dr. Lippert did not provide a cost for the elementary books but said the middle-grade books, which the board may be asked to approve this month, would cost as much as $750,000.

Administrators also recommended piloting a new gifted program at Pittsburgh Colfax K-8, Squirrel Hill; Pittsburgh Dilworth PreK-5, East Liberty; Pittsburgh Fort Pitt PreK-5, Garfield; and Pittsburgh Northview PreK-5.

Students at those schools would receive gifted instruction five days a week, as opposed to attending classes at the West End gifted center one day a week as they do now. Gifted students at all other elementary and middle-grade schools would continue to have classes at the gifted center one day a week while the district evaluates the three-year pilot project.

Administrators said the so-called "pullout program," while popular, wasn't providing adequate instruction. But board members expressed skepticism, saying students have certain advantages at the gifted center.

"They meet kids from all across the city," noted Floyd "Skip" McCrea.

Nearly 1,500 students now attend classes at the gifted center. The district later intends to announce changes to the gifted program at the high schools.

A growing number of students learning English as a second language prompted administrators to recommend that the district begin using Pittsburgh Brashear High School in Beechview and Pittsburgh Allderdice High School in Squirrel Hill as "regional centers" for that population.

Right now, all high-school students learning English as a second language attend Pittsburgh Schenley High School in Oakland. Last night's proposal would end the program at Schenley, a building that may be closed for maintenance reasons anyway in June.

Curriculum Supervisor Tim McKay said the number of English-language learners is 488, up from 292 last school year.

It was unclear when the board would vote on the changes for gifted students and English-language learners.

Edited by IlikeLIvonia, Mar 3 2009, 03:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IlikeLIvonia
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
And Texas.....

26 November 2007

Was the Texas State Board of Education correct to reject the
3rd Grade curriculum of Everyday Math? In fact, yes.


By Nakonia (Niki) Hayes

Part One: The facts on Texas Mathematics Standard 3.4(a) and Everyday Math
Part Two: The facts on the physical construction of Everyday Math, 3rd Grade, 3rd Edition
Part Three: An introduction to the author of this report

Part One: The facts on “Texas Mathematics Standard 3.4(a)” and Everyday Math

Faulty construction was the complaint of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) of Everyday Math’s third grade materials up for adoption in November of this year. It wasn’t about the 109, 263 proofreading mistakes in mathematics materials submitted by all the publishers this year in Texas. It was about an issue that speaks to the heart among many in the mathematics education debate today: the multiplication tables.

With a 7-6 vote (and one abstention), the SBOE rejected the third grade program of the third edition of Everyday Math. They said it did not meet the Texas mathematics standards that required third graders to learn their multiplication tables to “automaticity” (or “by heart”) through the 12s:
3.4(a) The student is expected to learn and apply multiplication facts through 12 by 12 using concrete models and objects.

The SBOE’s members who voted to reject the book have been blasted by Everyday Math representatives who maintain the book does meet the standard. They say with proofreading corrections the problem can be corrected. There’s also a fringe group who declares the board is “censoring” materials by their voting to reject the 3rd grade curriculum. Lawsuits are being threatened.

Let’s look at the facts. In their Math Masters and Home Link Masters, which is composed of worksheets to be sent home to the family, Everyday Math states in the “Introduction of Unit 7, pp. 202-232, on “Multiplication and Division”:

“The goal is for children to demonstrate automaticity with x0, x1, x2, x5, and x10 multiplication facts and to use strategies to compute remaining facts up to 10 x 10 by the end of the year.”

Conclusion: “Automaticity” is not expected for x3, x4, x6, x7, x8, x9, and certainly not for x11 and x12.


Yet, in their Correlation to the Texas Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) manual, EM lists 39 pages that say the publisher has lessons/activities to support the Texas standard requirement of learning and applying multiplication facts through 12 by 12.

All of those pages do support multiplication topics. Only one page, however, refers to working with 12 by 12 multiplication facts: P. 280 in the Teacher’s Lesson Guide (TLG) Vol. 1 says in a framed graphic at the bottom of the page:

ADJUSTING THE ACTIVITY (of “Playing Baseball Multiplication”): The basic game uses facts through 6 x 6. The advanced version of Baseball Multiplication, described on pages 276-277 in the Student Reference Book, uses products up to 12 x 12. Children use Math Masters, page 444 to keep score.
Since it is a Teacher’s Guide that determines the “objective for the lesson” each day, and with which supplemental workbooks or resources are correlated, it is important to review the objectives cited as “supporting” Texas Math Standard 3.4(a):

1) Vol. 1, P. 248-253: To provide opportunities to use arrays, multiplication/division diagrams, and number models to represent and solve multiplication number stories. (Lesson 4.3, “Multiplication Arrays”)

2) Vol. 1, P. 272-277: To review fact families and the Multiplication/Division Facts Table; and to guide children as they practice multiplication and division facts. (Lesson 4.6, “Multiplication and Division Fact Families”)

3) Vol. 1, P. 278-280: To practice multiplication facts. (Lesson 4.7, “Baseball Multiplication.”)

4) Vol. 2, P. 576-579: To review square-number facts, multiplication, and division patterns. (Lesson 7.1, “Patterns in Products”)

5) Vol. 2, P. 582-587: To guide children as they determine which multiplication facts they still need to learn. (Lesson 7.2, “Multiplication Facts Survey”)

Other sources cited by EM that support Texas Math Standard 3.4(a) include four worksheet activities in the Student Math Journal, four pages of review in the Student Reference Journal, and three activities in Math Masters (not an assessment source).

Two conclusions can be drawn from this factual information. First, Everyday Math does not meet the Texas Mathematics Standards for 3rd Grade. Second, the claim by representatives that it does is, at best, a misinformed one among themselves. At worst, the claim is a deliberate attempt to mislead the board.

The academic value placed by some Texas state board members on the role of automaticity with multiplication facts [i.e., cognitive, not calculator], with 3rd grade students learning and applying required mathematical knowledge and skills for future success, was made clear with their votes.

This mistake by Everyday Math is not a “proofreading” error. It is a clear indicator of the publisher’s philosophy regarding multiplication facts for 3rd graders. It will also require more than a “supplement” to correct or improve the program.

Part Two: The facts on the physical construction of Everyday Math, 3rd Grade, 3rd Edition

As a preface, it is necessary to remind every adult involved (or not) with elementary education the daily schedule of those teachers. They are teaching the four core subjects of mathematics, language arts (reading/writing, which includes phonemic awareness, spelling, and grammar), social studies, and science. Most are required to cover other areas such as art, music, character education, keyboarding skills, etc.

When a 2003 survey was done in Seattle Public Schools’ to determine actual “seat time” for learning purposes, we discovered that elementary students received about 4.5 hours of actual academic learning time per day out of the 6.5 hours we had them for 176 student days. (This excludes holidays or days off for teacher in-service, etc, during the year). The limited availability of learning time had become apparent after we removed the following times of “non-academics” that had to take place each day:

“Passing time”: Bringing children in from their lineup areas when the bell rang to start the school day and settling them into class routines.
Recess twice daily (once in the morning and once in the afternoon).
“Passing time x2”: Bringing children in from each recess and settling them into class routines.
“Passing time: Taking children to the cafeteria for lunch (and going to restrooms before lunch
and after recess to wash hands, etc.)
“Passing time”: Bringing children in from lunch recess and settling them into class routines.
“Passing time”: Taking children to and retrieving them from the gym for P.E.
“Passing time”: Taking children to and retrieving them from the library.
Setting aside time for foreign language instruction, or, at our school, other electives such as journalism or photography to improve writing skills (which included the 3rd grade).
Preparing children for the end of the school day with assignments, coats, etc., and ready for buses.

Then, we subtracted times for early dismissals (teacher professional development, holidays, parent-teacher conference weeks), assemblies, field trips, fire drills, earthquake drills, lockdown drills, two class parties allowed each year, and at least two weeks for TESTING for the Direct Reading Assessment, Direct Writing Assessment, and the state-mandated WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning).

There are, of course, other events that cause children to be out of their “academic setting.” One of the biggest is the absence of the regular teacher from the classroom. Substitutes are generally warm bodies who babysit the students. (Add a curriculum with unique and/or unknown procedures, such as lattice multiplication and substitutes will definitely not be able to teach math.) High teacher absenteeism means lost learning time. Another major source of time lost is caused by student misbehaviors that take away from a classroom’s learning environment.

We realized we were lucky to get 4.5 hours per day for “real learning.”

It is therefore crucial to remember the class schedules, hours, and academic requirements that are expected of elementary teachers as the following information is reviewed from Everyday Math’s 3rd grade curriculum materials.

The number of pages in each published “component” (manual, workbook, journal, etc.) is shown in red font. Worksheets, or “paper-and-pencil” tasks, are shown in blue font. For those who claim they avoid the “traditional” use of paper-and-pencil tasks and thus prefer Everyday Math’s “activity-based learning,” this should be enlightening.

A total of 2,997 pages are in the 3rd grade “components” of Everyday Math for teacher review and use. Of those, 925 are worksheets for students. In addition, when the following materials are stacked, they measure 8 inches in height and weigh 18 pounds. The following body of information, without the page count, is from http://www.wrightgroup.com/index.php/componentfeatures?isbn=007608972X.


Grade 3 Core Classroom Resource Package includes:
·Teacher's Lesson Guides (Volume 1 & 2) - The core of the Everyday Mathematics program, the Teacher's Lesson Guide provides teachers with easy-to-follow lessons organized by instructional unit, as well as built-in mathematical content support. Lessons include planning and assessment tips and multi-level differentiation strategies to support all learners. 848 pages + 152 pages of “reference” information (glossary, charts, etc.) = 1000 pages.
·Teacher's Reference Manual (Grades 1-3) - Contains comprehensive background information about mathematical content and program management. 290 pages
·Assessment Handbook - Grade-specific handbook provides explanations of key features of assessment in the Everyday Mathematics program. Includes Assessment Masters. 144 pages of examples for teacher information + 83 forms for teacher use = 227 pages + 64 pages of blank assessment worksheets
·Differentiation Handbook - Grade-specific handbook provides that helps teachers plan strategically in order to reach the needs of diverse learners. 145 pages
·Home Connection Handbook (Grades 1-3) - Enhances home-school communication for teachers and administrators. Includes masters for easy planning. 102 pages
·Minute Math (Grades 1-3) - Contains brief activities for transition times and for spare moments throughout the day. 112 pages
·Math Masters - Blackline masters for routines, activities, projects, Home Links/Study Links, and games. 468 pages
·Number Grid Poster
·Sunrise/Sunset Chart
·Content by Strand Poster
·One set of Student Materials
oStudent Math Journals (Volumes 1 & 2) - These consumable books provide daily support for classroom instruction. They provide a long-term record of each student's mathematical development. 281 pages
oStudent Reference Book (Grades 3) - This book contains explanations of key mathematical content, along with directions to the Everyday Mathematics games. 308 pages
oPattern Block Template – A clear, green, plastic tracing template contains a variety of geometric shapes with six of the shapes exactly matching the sizes of the pattern blocks.
To cover the Texas Mathematics Standards, the two volumes of the Teacher’s Lesson Guide would have to be completed; i.e., 848 pages of teaching directions and content in 176 days, supported by assignments from other EM “component” materials. Even though each day’s lesson/objective in the Guide covers an average of four pages, that still requires 212 days to get through all of the recommended lessons—without assessments. And that’s assuming each day’s lesson is accomplished in one day, with no “extensions” or reteaching required of the lesson.

A buzz phrase now being circulated by Everyday Math’s publisher, the University of Chicago Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education, is “fidelity of implementation” (FOI), explained at http://cemse.uchicago.edu/node/3. This leads one to believe that only EM materials may be used to assure promised outcomes by the publisher, which also suggests a district should buy all of the above materials or EM should not be held accountable for negative learning results.

Questions come to mind

The first question has to center on the costs, in millions of dollars, for these materials. That includes the published materials and the professional development required to train teachers how to use those “effectively”—or at least with “fidelity.” And, in today’s “eco-friendly world,” the costs to the environment should be considered with how many trees it takes to print these materials.

Second, since such massive teaching resources seem to be written for every conceivable situation a teacher might face in a 3rd grade mathematics class, what is the underlying message? Is this an effort to “teacher-proof” the materials?

Third, has any data been collected to see how much of EM material is actually covered each year?

Lastly, has anyone surveyed third grade teachers to see if they need or want 3,000 pages of materials to cull for only ONE of the four core subjects they must teach in 176 days?




Part Three: An introduction to the author, Nakonia (Niki) Hayes

Even though I retired from teaching in 2006, my interest in mathematics education has continued. For that reason, I decided to study the issues around the recent rejection of Everyday Math’s third grade curriculum by the Texas State Board of Education. In order to understand my frame of reference in reporting on this situation, I offer a brief introduction to my background as an educator and journalist.

First, my bachelor’s degree is in journalism; my master’s, in counseling. I began my doctoral work in mathematics education at the University of Texas-Austin but decided its philosophy did not square with mine and I left the program. My work in journalism fields for 17 years included being a newspaper reporter, public information officer, and in public relations positions for two state senators. I’ve taught journalism in three high schools, at a community college, and I established a journalism program at a K-5 elementary school in 2001 that is still being used.

As an educator for 28 years, I became certified and experienced in special education, counseling, mathematics, and administration. While working as a special education teacher, I found that teaching mathematics to my middle and high school learning disabled students was a valuable way for them to learn structure, cause-and-effect, and linear thinking, all traits they needed to incorporate in their episodic learning and living. This led me to earn a certification in mathematics. Subsequently, I taught grades 6-12 for 15 years in high, at-risk populations in Central Texas and Washington state. My students were in special, regular, and gifted education classes. Because of my training, I was usually asked to take the English language learners.

I became acutely aware of the growing deficiencies of math skills among all of my students during 1987-1991. My question was, “What is happening at the elementary level that our students are coming to us with so many deficiencies in mathematics?”

As a middle and high school guidance counselor, I saw failure rates and “remedial courses” becoming the norm for students, both in public education and colleges.

I figured being a principal would allow me to affect curriculum and the teaching of mathematics in elementary schools. So, I became one. That experience includes my being a P-12 principal/ teacher on an American Indian reservation and principal at a K-5 school in Seattle, WA, with an 80%, upper-middle-class white, student population.

Lastly, my training in Jerusalem, Israel in 1998 and 1999 with Reuven Feuerstein introduced me to a pioneer in constructivism who knows how to use it effectively. Prof. Feuerstein’s International Center for the Enhancement of Learning Potential is dedicated to teaching cognitive remediation strategies. His work has been used throughout Europe with business leaders, in South Africa for children from apartheid policies, and for a half million children in Brazil. The American “home office” is with IRI Skylight Publishers in Chicago, IL, since there are some U.S. districts that use his programs.

In essence, my approach to mathematics education is not that of a mathematician. It is one of a “diversified” educator who happens to appreciate the reality and potential of mathematics and what it can mean for learners who master its power.

And in summary, this report isn’t about pedagogy, the primary focus of the math wars across this nation. It is about the accuracy of EM’s content as compared to the Texas state standards and an accountability of simple quantitative facts. As a teacher and an administrator, I would not accept any program that clearly maintains the mile-wide-inch-deep approach in mathematics education, whether it’s in teacher materials or in content for students, and that is what Everyday Math offers.
http://www.keepeanesinformed.com/pdf/EM%20final%20report%20from%20Niki%2026%20Nov.doc



Edited by IlikeLIvonia, Mar 3 2009, 05:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IlikeLIvonia
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Trendy Math is building a Weak Foundation for Michigan children; does Singapore Math add up instead?

http://k12reformer.blogspot.com/2007/11/trendy-math-is-building-weak-foundation.html

More Michigan schools continue to adopt "Everyday Math" (also known as "Chicago Math") while other academically serious states are now starting to abandon it.

I've pasted below a scathing email communication from EdWatch that addresses this growing concern over a weak math curriculum.

"Critics dub fuzzy math an “epidemic.” If so, it’s been festering for at least twenty years. “New math” goes back farther yet, but the so-called “world class” national math standards embedded fuzzy math into the classrooms by nursing it along with generous amounts of our tax dollars beginning in the early 90’s. Now Fuzzy Math is an open, oozing canker. Armies of graduates are unprepared for college math, or for life, for that matter."


I heard that Rochester schools are changing their math curriculum next year. No more EM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply