Another high school math debate September 25, 2009
Posted by Matt in Making Change, process standards.1 comment so far
In a follow-up to the last post, I came across an article in the Salt Lake Tribune (math education in Utah is a particularly fascinating topic). It seems that a district superintendent sparked a debate with the state superintendent when he sent a tweet that called the state’s position on high school math standards, “curious.”
The disagreement comes not from whether students should take more math in high school, but rather from what math they should take. The state superintendent believes that all students should take math through Algebra 2, and then have options for further study. His critic believes that all students should take calculus.
I agree with the first idea, for a few reasons. Calculus has been inappropriately crowned the king of math. Calculus is merely a doorway to further studies in math or a related field. Students considering a career that is rich in mathematics (pure math, math education, engineering, physics, etc.) should plan to take calculus, preferably in high school.
Many college-bound students will benefit more from a statistics course (required if they choose to attend graduate school) than a calculus course. Most students, regardless of their career plans, would benefit from a course in discrete math, although most schools and districts are slow to consider this path.
The danger of the argument is that these options are being labeled “tracks,” a negative term that implies that students that take statistics are not as smart or capable as students that take calculus. The responsibility lies with the schools and teachers to ensure that this ability grouping doesn’t happen, and that students are given every opportunity to follow the path of their choosing beyond Algebra 2.
Rethinking high school math September 24, 2009
Posted by Matt in Math Intervention, assessment.add a comment
I came across an interesting article in the Delaware Cape Gazette regarding high school math. There were two things that attracted my attention:
High school Principal John Yore said teaching geometry at ninth grade is ideal. “The top scores come from students who’ve had geometry or better. Students who take geometry at ninth grade do better at upper-level high school courses and on any standardized test, including the SAT.”
In response, I would say, “Of course they do!” If you take geometry in ninth grade, you are far more likely to take an upper-level course, let alone do well at it. It is difficult – nearly impossible – to take a Calculus course if you don’t take geometry in ninth grade. One result of taking an upper-level course is a higher score on standardized tests; most college entrance exams assess content through precalculus.
[One board member] asked if the district needed to address math at the middle schools, as well. Robert Fulton, high school education supervisor, said both middle schools already have math specialists. The priority is the high school, he said, which needs support.
So what do the math specialists do? Ideally, the specialists’ time is spent working with teachers, focused on effective instruction. But this isn’t enough. The board needs to be asking what systems have been put in place to address students that fall behind in middle school. Waiting to address problems in high school doesn’t work (I’ve been there).
In this case it’s about instruction, but it’s also about effective (and early) intervention.
…And the Counterpoint September 14, 2009
Posted by Matt in Making Change, process standards.2 comments
A few days ago, I posted a link and some commentary about reform math in Washington. Today, I came across this post, which is specific to Everyday Math.
The author notes that, “Reform math has dominated our schools for more than 15 years. Over this period, our international ranking has plummeted.” It seems that the article in the Seattle paper directly refuted this claim. At any rate…
The author basically degrades Everyday Math, citing several states that have banned or failed to adopt the program for various reasons. Here’s what might be my favorite paragraph:
Everyday Math has been described as a “mile wide and an inch deep.” U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is calling for “more depth and less breadth” in education. States like Connecticut are heavily invested in reform programs like Everyday Math. The Hartford Courant newspaper recently reported that 40 percent of incoming college freshmen require non-credit “remedial” mathematics.
Mile Wide, Inch Deep: Show me a core basal program that isn’t. It’s a symptom of over 50 different sets of standards and a long-running debate over what students really need to know.
More Depth, Less Breadth: This should be the goal of every teacher. Figure out what your students know, what the “kinda” know, and what they don’t know, and then adjust your teaching to fit. I’m a big fan of Texas Instruments and what they are dong for education, but stories like the one I received in a TI email today send shivers up my spine: “Imagine having your whole year planned out before stepping foot in your classroom.”
Remedial Math: Only 40 percent? Seems low. Again, this is a symptom of more than the program. It’s about outdated standards, outdated teaching, and a refusal to move away from the teacher’s comfort zone.
So we’re back to the same place: It’s about instruction.
(Note that nashworld does a great job of highlighting the need for quality instruction-through his own experience-in a recent post.)
Related:
How many times do I have to tell you…
What did you expect?
Washington’s Miniature War September 10, 2009
Posted by Matt in General Information, Making Change, process standards.add a comment
If you follow the ongoing saga of the “math wars” at all, you are likely familiar with the long-running debate in the state of Washington. Many school districts in Washington were early adopters of NSF-funded “reform” mathematics curricula, and much of the debate surrounding these programs has come out of Washington. (If you don’t believe me, do a search on YouTube for math.)
Even given this background, I was a bit surprised to see this guest editorial in the Seattle Times regarding discovery-based math. Of particular interest to me were the comments.
I think we’d like to believe the math wars are over. This article, and the related comments, bring us back into reality. It begs the question, “Will the math wars ever end?”
Teacher Training vs. Classroom Time: Round 1 March 12, 2009
Posted by Matt in Making Change.add a comment
Educators know the value of quality professional development. Teachers left to rely on the skills and strategies acquired during a four- or five-year undergraduate program are ill-prepared to help students master key concepts (in math, reading, or any other subject). That is why we subject ourselves to continued learning. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s not. However, quality professional development is critical to changing the way we do business.
Other countries get this. Teachers spend significant time in professional development and lesson study activities. This is one factor contributing to the success of the primary Singapore mathematics program. Some districts in the U. S. get this, too. But then we get news like this.
There are two underlying factors in this situation:
- Parents – 100 (or more) of them signed a petition. Their main (although unstated) concern: My kids aren’t in school and so I have to pay for daycare for an extra three hours every Wednesday. This is indicative of our culture. I’m not going to say more about that now.
- Teacher organizations. My favorite quote on this topic from the article: “The kids need to be in school…. If they needed to do the meetings, the teachers should be paid to go to the meetings after school, you know, not take it out of time for the kids.” This is really about pay, not what’s best for kids. It’s an unfortunate pattern that emerges in district after district.
Unfortunately, the winner of Round 1 in Laramie County is classroom time – time that could be more productive if teachers were able to participate in training on a regular basis.
How many times do I have to tell you…? February 25, 2009
Posted by Matt in General Information, Making Change.2 comments
Take a look at this article in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Yet another example of people missing the point: it’s about instruction.
The State of Utah would be much better off spending their money on competitive grants to districts to provide training for their teachers in concept-based mathematics.
I won’t rant about this anymore. I think this says it all.
What did you expect? May 20, 2008
Posted by Matt in Making Change, process standards.Tags: algebra, ASCD, high school, instruction
add a comment
From the ASCD Blog:
“More math, particularly Algebra, in California high schools has yet to pay off. Last week’s most-clicked Smartbrief story reported that enrollment in remedial math courses still remains high in California Universities, leading many to question why high school reforms are not transferring to college-preparedness.”
Are we surprised? This is much less an issue of what we teach than an issue of how it is taught.
Standards are not the problem. Expectations for student learning and the pervasive “sit and get” culture of high school mathematics teaching are the culprits. Our focus needs to extend beyond the curriculum to include sound instructional strategies.
Foundations for Success March 17, 2008
Posted by Matt in General Information, Making Change.add a comment
File this under, “Stuff I meant to post last week and didn’t.”
The National Mathematics Advisory Panel released its final report last week, titled Foundations for Success. You can find the report and sub-reports in a variety of file formats at the NMAP home page.
The report is heavily grounded in “high-quality” research and includes six key elements that I would summarize as follows:
- Curriculum Focal Points;
- How students learn;
- Teacher content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge;
- Quality first instruction;
- Quality, focused assessment; and
- Education research.
Remember, these are my summaries, not theirs. I would suggest looking at the report if you’re at all interested in what the group had to say, as they are much more verbose than I.
Making Change: Part 1 March 8, 2008
Posted by Matt in Making Change, Math Intervention.Tags: Math Intervention, student needs, systems
add a comment
I’ve been doing some thinking about the last post, regarding the need for change. I was (intentionally) vague in stating how we need to change, although I had planned to address that issue later. What I realize now is that this is way more than one post; here is part one of [who knows how many?].
Sometimes the systems in which we work are broken and need fixing. One of these systems that deserves our attention is the options and support available to students who are below grade level in mathematics, particularly at the secondary level. The reality is that all teachers should know more about the Response to Intervention (RtI) model besides the fact that such a model exists.
How do we provide for these students? We must begin by understanding their individual needs. Diagnostic assessment data provides one perspective and can help identify potential students . Another important factor is teacher input; this provides a critical perspective about students who would or would not benefit from some type of intervention. The system within a school or district needs to support the transition process and provide the opportunity for teachers – those who know the students at the individual level – to provide input into the intervention placement process.
Once we are aware of individual student needs, we need to approach the numbers of students – however daunting or discouraging – with a positive attitude. Schools and districts need to find ways to accommodate the needs of these students. The key to this system is increased time and intensity – “remediation” in the traditional sense will not work, because we are obligated to help students who are below grade level get on a trajectory that will get them to grade level proficiency (hopefully before they leave our buildings).
The task, then, is to find a way to increase the time that these students are spending in mathematics – often through “double-dose” courses – with resources that are not changing and sometimes decreasing. In most cases, this process involves a significant change in the way that schools and school districts do business. However, this change to the existing system is necessary to facilitate further changes that will benefit the students whom we serve.
(Next time: Changing the way we think about instruction and instructional resources for students below grade level.)
The Whole Truth… January 15, 2008
Posted by Matt in Math Intervention, assessment.Tags: assessment, instruction, observation
add a comment
I had the opportunity to talk about assessment with a group of elementary school teachers earlier this week. Our discussion focused on scoring, with particular emphasis on the scoring of constructed response items similar to those that appear on many state assessments. In Colorado, there exists a set of holistic rubrics for this purpose. They are sound, but require some understanding of what is being measured to be used effectively. We also talked about preassessment – why and how to preassess kids. This topic is better suited for a later post.
Knowing that this presentation was looming on the horizon, I had been on the lookout for assessment-related ideas anywhere I could find them. So last Saturday, while enjoying a Shrekmarathon with my wife and kids, I found what was looking for. In the first movie, Shrek overhears Fiona lamenting about her ugliness and thinks she is talking about him. Dejected (he had just worked up his courage to express his undying love), Shrek walks off into the night.
I showed this one-minute segment to teachers. Then I made my point: when it comes to assessing student learning, be sure
-
you have the whole picture; and
-
you have the right picture.
Sometimes, whether observing students working or scoring an assessment, it is easy to miss the big picture or to only get a part of the picture. If we use assessment data to guide our instruction, but we’re working with an incorrect or incomplete picture, then our instruction will miss the mark.
So next time you think assessment, think Shrek - and get the whole picture the first time.
