Get Schooled

By V for Vendetta

October 10, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Bridget, you’re right on target.

Who cares what this asinine new system is called? That’s not the problem. The problem lies in the fact that this new system does not work, it can’t work, and only a state DOE as dumb as Georgia’s would adopt something this tragically flawed. This system has even been tried in other states, and was thrown out because it, for lack of a better word, SUCKS.

But that’s Georgia in a nutshell, isn’t it? Specifically, that’s metro-Atlanta in a nutshell. Let’s try the latest and greatest, let’s declare it from the roof tops and shout it out to every news agency that will listen, and in the end let’s realize that it was the biggest mistake ever. Let’s realize that we should have seen it coming.

The question is: when will the parents and teachers realize that this will never stop? When they realize that if we keep electing moronic, pencil-pushing educrats into office, nothing will ever change. When will they take the power back?

The “new” Math might be the newest fad to hit Georgia education, but it sounds like the same old tune to me. Fix what isn’t broken, focus on everything but the problem, trumpet arbitrary and meaningless statistics and changes. Bravo, DOE, bravo. For the record, I haven’t talked to a SINGLE colleague in math ed. who likes this idea. Not one. And I promise you this, most of them are a heck of a lot smarter than the mouth-breathers they have working over at the DOE.

What’s next? English 1, 2, 3, and 4? Science 1, 2, 3, and 4? Failures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, …

By Jeff

October 10, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

V:

I would say to give this idea a shot. It DOES have merit. And my credentials as a subject matter expert in Mathematics Education are undisputed. (My credentials in talking about classroom management are HIGHLY disputed, but not my subject matter expertise!)

What the State is trying to pull of here is to get EVERYONE - students, parents, and (in some cases, mostly) teachers to realize that there truly are NO “distinct” areas of mathematics. They all blur together. There are geometric ways of looking at algebraic concepts, and there are algebraic ways of looking at geometric concepts.

For too long, both students and teachers have thought “I’m in Geometry. I don’t need to know Algebra in this class.” The new apporach emphasizes that yes, in fact, you DO need to know all areas of math, no matter which particular area you may be looking at at the moment.

By jim d

October 10, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

This paragraph says it all.

A former social studies teacher, Cox blamed years of “low expectations” for some students and a poor math curriculum that allowed pupils to get away with taking dumbed-down classes for the state’s low scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the SAT.

By Positive Blogger

October 10, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Jeff, I was told that this new math was based on the same concept used in other countries that excel in the area of math.. Is this true? I am asking you because you have a background in math.

By jim d

October 10, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

Sorry dude. “Givin it a shot” when it has failed miserably in other parts of the country is not scientifically sound nor is it acceptable.

By Question

October 10, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

I’ve been “out of the loop” on this, unfortunately, but here is my question. How does having the titles “Math 1, and Math 2”, effect the children when they go to college. Most colleges request transcripts showing that the person has had a year of “Geometry” or two years of “Algebra”? Are the colleges excepting Math 1 & 2, without any specific distinction of what was actually taught???

By Jeff

October 10, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

Positive:

I’m not sure of the European model. If you’ve been here long, you know I tend to disdain “research” and use logic more than any “study” to dictate how I operate.

To me, the removal of a specific title from a math class is a GOOD thing. As I said, it emphasizes that in math, there are typically MULTIPLE ways to look at any given problem.

In fact, if I remember correctly, this is the very strategy teachers are urged to use under the new system: to emphasize to students that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 can be looked at as EITHER an algebra problem OR a geometric problem, and that the proper solution can be arrived at along EITHER path. (FYI: In case you didn’t know, that equation is the Pythagorean Theorem. A concept that one generally studies in Geometry, but in application it lends itself more easily to Algebra. Which is exactly the point that both I and the State are trying to make.)

By Jeff

October 10, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Question:

It simply means that colleges will look at the standards for Math 1 and 2 (and 3 and 4, etc) and match those to what they consider to be a year of __.

Colleges already do this with other areas of admission, such as Graduate Admissions and International Admissions. It will simply be another piece of paper for admissions personnel to look at when reviewing a GA grad’s application that will be drawn up once and updated as needed. Overall, it may take some lowly student assistant at the college about 2 hours to write up, some person with decision-making authority 5 minutes to review and sign, and the admissions personnel about 30 seconds to look over.

By MrLiberty

October 10, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Congratulations parents,

Your kids are going to be guinea pigs once again. The last time it was “new reading” and now we have a serious illiteracy problem.

Now the new math and they will be forever using their fingers and toes to count.

Why do you continue to let the government experiment on your kids? Why do you continue to support a school system that treats you like dirt, instead of a paying customer?

When are you finally going to show your kids that you ACTUALLY care about how they are raised and educated and start HOMESCHOOLING them?

Hey, they’re just your kids. I mean its not like the government is coming down on your favorite football quarterback or favorite team or anything important like that.

By Bridget Gutierrez

October 10, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

Q: That’s been one of the complaints from parents — that colleges and universities, particularly those out of state, won’t accept the courses. And that’s partly why the DOE has decided to change the names to make them more descriptive of the actual course content.

But state officials also say that colleges and universities are well used to deciphering transcripts that come from all over the world, and that new course titles should hardly complicate admissions matters.

By jim d

October 10, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Well ain’t that a fine kettle of fish?

The folks making the call aren’t the ones whose children won’t get into their first or second, hell maybe even their 3rd school of choice because Georgia had to be a trend setter.

Sorry folks but this is nothing more tham the continued garbage we’ve been being spoon fed for the past 30 years or so. Time to get some back bone and say HELL NO, I’m not giving my childs future over to your A$$ kissing politics.

By Fulton Parent

October 10, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Look…my 13 year old daughter has yet to encounter a competent math teacher. They’d rather be making more money doing something else. Fan we please find decent math teachers that know how to “teach” math?! That’s the real problem!

By Paula

October 10, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

Recall, that in other countries where integrated math is taught, it is taught to the ones who qualify/test to get into the college prep high schools. These students are tracked by age 14 into college prep high schools and vocational high schools. The public is not all taking the same math. I believe we are comparing apples and oranges.I support public education which means teach everyone. Everyone cannot master data analysis, algebra and geometric proofs. My math department is very worried about the lowest 10-15% who struggle to pass Algebra 1 and the end of course test in Algebra 1.

By Jeff

October 10, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Fulton Parent:

The problem is that the current education establishment is more worried about a person being proficient in the “education” side of teaching rather than the “subject matter expert” side.

I personally fall on the “subject matter expert” side. I can teach Abstract Algebra (Group Theory) to ANYONE that knows 3rd grade division.

And that INCLUDES 3rd graders.

Note that Group Theory is a class generally reserved for senior (re: last semester of college) mathematics or related majors at college, and FEW others have ever even HEARD of the topic.

(The very network you use to post here is more than likely ENTIRELY dependent on Group Theory at its basis, btw.)

By Political Mongrel

October 10, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Some of you are making too many assumptions, and you’re way off base. This has not been tried in other parts of the country, Georgia is the first. Where it HAS been tried is in Japan, Korea, Russia, and other countries that run rings around the US in math education, and it has worked VERY well there.

Part of the problem with math in the US has been in compartmentalizing math in high school and in basically repeating the same stuff over and over in math in the 3rd through 7th grades. Math fits together as a whole, and dividing it up like has been done gets in the way of understanding.

Colleges around the US are generally aware of Georgia’s efforts in this area. Many have stated their approval and are waiting to see the results. It’ll take several years to see the true results, though. We’ve had decades to see how bloody poorly the current methods have done.

One problem, though, is that there are no math text series out there that fit the new curriculum properly, so school systems are having to work out ways to get materials that fit.

By high school teacher

October 10, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

Some more edu-acronyms for y’all:

LYNT = last year’s new thing TYNT = this year’s new thing NYNT = next year’s new thing

Supposedly, the new math concept is based on the Japanese model of a spiraling curriculum. That was the word on the street when the concept was first introcuded.

Fulton Parent, case in point: the best math teacher I ever had left midway through my junior year (Algebra II) to take a position in human resources with Delta, making triple her teaching salary.

The knee-jerk reaction to this is to pay math teachers more money so that they will stay, but of course other teachers (like me, the English teacher) pitch a fit on the inequality of that issue. The state can’t afford to raise the salaries of all of the teachers, so they just keep everyone the same. In the meantime, all of the administrators and central office people walk around with their $600 blackberries…

By Curious

October 10, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

Call it whatever you want, but my College Algebra teacher my freshamn year of college taught eighth-graders during the week…why do they even offer this class to college kids? (Easy “A”!!)

I am not ashamed to say I have no head for math - I don’t go so far to use my fingers and toes to count, but I always double-check my work.

I am annoyed that I spend all this money (we have a big fat SPLOST in my city schools and county) and our state still manages to score so poorly. Could it be attributed to more underpriviledged people here than in higher-scoring states? What factors contribute to unprepared students at test time?

By Atlanta Pearl Girl

October 10, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

I think change is tough period. The students will be fine I’m sure…it’s the parents (myself included) that will have a glazed look in their eyes and will be saying “Go ask your father”.

Atlanta Pearl Girl

By jim d

October 10, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

Let’s look at a few facts from japan since you brought it up.

Regarding basic number facts, Japanese students are much more competent than US students. The facts are over-learned to a point where they are simply not a problem. Calculators are not allowed to replace oral or pencil and paper computations in lower elementary school where this competence is consciously sought and achieved nor are graphing calculators in widespread use at the secondary level.

Appears to me that prior to jumping ship we need to start at the bottom and work our way up over the next 12 years if this is the direction we elect to go.

By high school teacher

October 10, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Could it be attributed to more underpriviledged people here than in higher-scoring states? What factors contribute to unprepared students at test time?

Good questions. I would love to compare demographics of states and see if there is a correlation to educational performance.

As for students being unprepared at test time: I will be the first to say that some teachers need to improve some attitudes and delivery techniques. I’m not saying that we need to be an MTV video, but a little spice doesn’t hurt.

THAT SAID… my algebra teacher friend down the hall currently has a 45% failure rate, not because the kids score poorly on tests, but because they don’t turn in their work. I teach honors classes, and I have 20% failing because they don’t turn in their essays.

Today, I had a paper due. I had 8 students who didn’t turn it in (honors classes, mind you). I have resorted to making the students call their parents during my class (I have phone access), and they have to explain to their parents why they don’t have their essay.

By jim d

October 10, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

mongrel,

Are we prepared to follow the Japs in educational practice and policy?

I don’t see attempting to mimic just one course as being beneficial. To the contrary I see it as being detrimental due to nothing more than cultural differences. Children in the US have not been prepared for this learning style and never will be.

Attempting to introduce a new method of teaching copied from the Japaneese model is doomed to fail and so are the majority of students that will be subjected to it unless we are willing to accept the cultural differences between the two systems and adapt our own culture to fit that of Japan. (I don’t think thats going to happen any time soon)

By CDog

October 10, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

I am a 10 year public high school math teacher in Georgia. The new math curriculum is not going to improve math scores in Georgia; it will not hurt them either. You are probably going to see more of the same results (blacks underperforming whites, whites underperforming Asians, low SES students underperforming non-low SES students, GA low in SAT rankings) because the problem is not with the curriculum.

Yes, Japan, Korea, and other countries have had success with this curriculum model, but that has more to do with the culture (highly valuing education in general and specifically math knowledge) and the fact that only certain students are allowed into a college-prep high school.

As long as we have a “free” education system that everyone is forced at legislative gunpoint to attend, as long as we have students who do not value education in general or math knowledge specifically, as long as the HOPE scholarship is not tied to SAT scores, you will not see an improvement in GA’s scores. There is so much diversity from county to county in GA (despite almost everything being controlled and funded at the state level) that it makes more sense for you to compare your individual county with the rest of the country. School systems in the suburban doughnut tend to be much better that the national average. It is the school systems in rural GA (north and south) and urban Atlanta that are poor performing. Unfortunately, there are more of these schools than the former, making GA’s overall performance low.

By Jeff

October 10, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

CDog:

Rural South GA also has its share of high performing schools. My wife (in 72 hours - pretty much from the second I am typing this!) teaches at one of them.

Lisa B knows exactly where we live and where T teaches and can vouch for it being one of the best. It is so good that virtually EVERYBODY in the area wants their kid to go there, and virtually EVERY teacher in the area wants to teach there.

Too bad their football program stinks! (But hey, the academics are SOLID, and even the Admin is GREAT. Best thing about her principal is that he was a classroom teacher less than half a decade ago and FULLY supports his teachers.)

By HS Teacher Too

October 10, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

Mongrel, You are very mistaken. This is essentially integrated mathematics, where the content matter spirals through the courses, and has been done FOR MANY YEARS in New York State as part of their “Sequential” math program (which has, of course, since been renamed.)

Essentially, the first course teaches introductory algebra, and where appropriate incorporates logic, geometry, and trigonometry. The second year builds on those concepts with greater emphasis on geometry concepts as the algebra skills of the students are stronger and can handle more challenging concepts; and likewise by the third year the course is able to incorporate significant amounts of trigonometry to support the geometry.

In theory a program such as this is THE way to teach math, which of course is filled with inter-related concepts more than it is discretely divided into “Algebra,” “Geometry,” etc. The problem is that when students transfer in and out of a system that uses this method, placement is very difficult — and more often than not, students are left with pretty big gaps in their knowledge.

If we were talking about implementing this program in system with a reasonable expectation of having the kids for all four years, it would probably do fantastic things for math achievement. But that’s simply not the bubble in which we live and function, and Georgia is foolish to adopt a program that HAS, in fact, been abandoned in other states, for exactly the reasons cited (among other reasons).

Mongrel refers to the Japanese lesson-study method, if I read him correctly, and we are not set up in terms of our reverence of education and our social expectations for such a system to work across-the-board in our American public schools.

By HS Teacher Too

October 10, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

High School teacher — this is way off topic, but I love the phone idea — I’ve resorted to exactly the same thing in years past. It works, at least! (And is pro-active so the kids have to talk to Mom and Dad in front of you, rather than calling them between classes and you end up with a reactive parent phone call to return at the end of the day!)

By HS Teacher Too

October 10, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

Curious, you asked, “What factors contribute to unprepared students at test time?”

Oh, dear curious, we lament this all the time on this blog. I will attempt to summarize some of the highlights:

Quite simply, if students were placed appropriately, and did the work that was expected of them, teachers could maintain at least a little of the rigor that we remember from being students ourselves. It’s the lack of rigor that robs students of the chance to ever HAVE to think critically before the high-stakes tests.

My two cents, taking the liberty to speak (at least a little) for the group.

By CDog

October 10, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

I would say that the school you are referring to is an exception for south GA rather than a rule. Check the numbers on any standardized test; the average school system in the suburban doughnut scores significantly higher than the average school system in rural GA or urban Atlanta. This is not to condemn any particular school system as not doing its job. School system performance has much to do with the demographics of who attends. Most schools have to work with what they have.

By Jeff

October 10, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

CDog:

Honestly, it helps that this particular system is 80% white, compared to 80% black throughout much of the area.

Having worked in a school that was roughly 50/50 and a school that was 98% black, I can say WITH CONVICTION that an honest look at the racial balance of a school will GENERALLY tell you how the school stands. The higher the black percentage, the worse off the school, GENERALLY. But that is the topic of another blog!

By D

October 10, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

What do the colleges have to say?
Did they provide any input to this new math system. How will it be funded who is going to teach it. How are the students going to be brought in?
Questions I haven’t seen answered.

By Martha

October 10, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

How about we call it what it is…..the result of a great marketing ploy by some big publishing company! We’ve gone through too many “new math” programs to count and NONE work as well as old fashioned drill and practice. Kids today can’t tell you that 1/2 of an item is 50%. Do some math operations without a calculator?? You have GOT to be kidding! Change a decimal to a fraction? Not in this lifetime.

Call the new math a new mess. That works.

By Martha

October 10, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

And, as far as HOMESCHOOLING is concerned….

HS is fine, IF the parents are qualified and dedicated and very organized. HS is fine, IF the children will have other ways to interact with other students their same age. The homeschooled kids that come to us are (for the most part) socially out of touch. They don’t know how to fit in in a lot of cases.

By HS Teacher Too

October 10, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

D, I am not aware that there is any additional funding required beyond the initial book adoption and teacher training (on the books). As I understand it, the current math teachers will teach the new math curriculum. I am not aware of how students will be placed if they transfer in to the program mid-way but I beleive that it will start with a fresh “batch” of students at a particular grade level (I don’t recall which) and grow each year with the students as they move up.

Hope this helps.

By Tony

October 10, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this

The “new” curriculum for Georgia’s High School math is an excellent curriculum plan. One of the problems with the current, out-dated organization of high school math curricula is its compartmentalization. The second flaw is the emphasis on analytical thinking rather that conceptual thinking. Today I whole-heartedly agree with Jeff. Having taught chemistry and physics in high school, students often lacked the conceptual understanding of what the numbers and formulae meant. The new curriculum design is much clearer, more logical, and breaks down the sacred barriers of the past.

What is wrong with the new curriculum is the fact that too many high school teachers are unprepared to teach conceptually. As a couple have noted on the list today, many of the really good teachers move to better paying jobs elsewhere.

To say this curriculum plan is untested is also a problem. As pointed out by several, this style of math curriculum is used in other countries with great success. The Georgia plan most closely resembles the Japanese model because of the leanness of the content. What this means is that teachers will be able to teach for understanding rather than pay lip service to the 70-80 objectives in the current plan.

As for the “text book publisher” push. I doubt seriously that publishers are behind the push for Georgia to change. It is not one of the states that drives text book development. Those would be New York, Texas and California. I don’t recall those states adopting an integrated approach for mathematics.

As for colleges, based on Georgia’s current SAT averages, I can’t say that we overly impress them with our current plan.

By Melanie Cameron

October 10, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

Dear Education Bloggers,

The Supreme Court is hearing the NY vs. Tom F. case regarding special education and choice Missouri released a poll that reports teachers and citizens support school choice expansion.

What do you think about the case before the Supreme Court? How about school choice getting high marks from Missouri’s teachers? Voice your thoughts at www.edspresso.com

By High School Physics Teacher

October 10, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

Fulton Parent: Unfortunately, you are right on target. I have a Master’s from Tech; I love physics and love helping students understand physics. Every time I hear our colleagues in the Dept. of Education refer to physics as my “subject matter area,” it gives me the creeps, and I feel sorry for them and their students. “Teacher proof” curriculum isn’t the answer (although every mathematical concept must be algebraically and geometrically understood…duh). The answer is people—smart people—lots of them. Financial considerations aside, the Dept. of Education drives smart people away from the profession.

By Tony

October 10, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

The names and sequences are not the basic problem. There is so much pressure to pass students and have a sufficient graduation rate. We don’t want students to fail so they learn they don’t have to succeed. We blame everyone and everything except students and their parents. Sorry I forgot parents vote so they can’t be part of the problem and students can’t be the problem so it must be teachers and curriculum. Math I, through IV are more challenging but in order to have an acceptable passing rate it will be watered down and we will get the same results

By Lee

October 10, 2007 6:55 PM | Link to this

Ho hum…

I’ve got a great idea. Let’s take an existing product, tweak it a bit, and present it to the public with great fanfare.

What do you want to call it?

I dont know — how about New Coke?

You know, I’ve been hearing about “New Math” for 40 years. Hard to put that spin on theories that originated several hundred to thousands?? of years ago.

The biggest problem I see with this whole concept is that a good percentage of the kids can’t do simple math functions (like divide fractions) before they get to Pre-algebra.

Might I suggest the schools work on that before we get all excited about New Math version 34.4.

By Political Mongrel

October 10, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this

Tony,

Please don’t forget that the new curriculum extends down to primary grades. I know that a fair number of elementary and middle grade teachers are already struggling with new methods and concepts. If it can’t be straightened out there, it’ll never work in the higher grades.

By LJ

October 10, 2007 6:58 PM | Link to this

Jeff, I believe I know the school in south GA you’re talking about…I believe my husband and I are both alumni. And despite taking the highest level honors and AP classes offered at the time, we both agree that we were NOT prepared for college course work (he at UGA and me at Emory), particularly in the areas of math and science. Point being, it’s not all relative. It doesn’t matter if one school is head and shoulders above the schools in the surrounding area if those students aren’t able to compete with students from other parts of the state (i.e. the metro area) and aren’t prepared for college.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what the courses are called if they aren’t taught well and don’t prepare students for the next step in their education.

And for the record, some of us did make it out of the public education system in this state and become fairly successful.

P.S. That principal you mention was by far one of my best teachers EVER.

By Ernest

October 11, 2007 8:10 AM | Link to this

The concern I’ve heard thus far is with regards to how colleges/universities will react to the new classes when evaluating transcripts. Will some type of training be offered for them to help them understand the goals and objectives of this change?

I’m concerned about the training that will be needed for current math and physics teachers.

By Jeff

October 11, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

LJ:

If you want confirmation that we are talking about the same school, feel free to email me at ajc_jeff@yahoo.com

Because T works there and I try to not reveal any specific information that could allow one to track us down, I really don’t want to say the name of the school, or even the system, publicly. (Though since I am the ONLY person to do the exact things I have acknowledged doing, it truly isn’t THAT hard, though I still don’t want to give away EXACTLY where we live here on the boards.)

By Math Teacher

October 11, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

With respect to those making comments on this topic, how many have actually read the new math GPS? Many people complain day after day about the lack of rigor taught in our schools. The new math GPS clearly is a step above what is currently required. University teachers and practicing classroom teachers from Georgia were the authors of the curriculum and the associated materials. The curriculum has been endorsed by the University System of Georgia, so that should alay some of the concerns expressed. The DOE officials responsible for the writing of the curriculum and the associated materials are all stellar classroom teachers with demonstrated success in a variety of situations. There is no push by a textbook company for Georgia to make this change to the math GPS. In fact, there are no textbook companies that have a product that will totally fit the rigor and scope that is required from the GPS. Many classroom teachers see this as a plus. After all, many respondants to this blog decry the “dumbing down” of the material by textbooks.

It is very easy to continue to spout the same cynical line day after day. Everything I have said in this post can be checked out.

I could really care less what each high school class ends up being called. I AM VERY excited about the prospect of every high school graduate being exposed to advanced algebra and data analysis. I am VERY excited that each topic is presented in the context of a real-life situation with relevant conclusions.

Can all students do this? It has been my experience over 25 years of teaching math that the vast majority of students will rise to the challenge that is presented to them. It may take some students more time and effort, but in my school over 90% of all students take Algebra 2. It CAN be done!!

Many participants on this blog bash Georgia education on a daily basis. It is clear to me that the DOE has very carefully and thoughtfully over a four year period written a new math curriculum that is challenging, relevant and accessible to all students. Isn’t this what people have been asking for??

By high school teacher

October 11, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

Financial considerations aside, the Dept. of Education drives smart people away from the profession.

So what am I, chopped liver? LOL :)

By Jeff

October 11, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

OK y’all, this is my sign-off for the next 10 days or so. By the time y’all hear from me again, I’ll have a ring on my left hand and (hopefully) a pretty decent tan!

Y’all have fun, be safe, and try to keep it civil!