Get Schooled

By So Laura

December 22, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

So Laura, when you visit these schools, are you given free reign, or are you escorted around the school by an administrator, and directed to selected classes? Do you ever get a chance to talk to teachers in a setting free of retaliation where they can discuss some of the issues that they discuss on this blog?

And speaking of retaliation, which Gwinnett is so well known for, have you ever been contacted by Alvin or his cronies and been asked to divulge any information from Gwinnett teachers who have been critical of his plan on this blog?

By jason

December 22, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

Huh???

I’m not from California, so I don’t know exactly what their state standards require. But, I bet they aren’t expecting students to succeed in algebra I without the basics. I imagine their K-7 standards are building those basics students need to succeed in Algebra i.

I don’t see anything wrong with expecting every child to be successful in Algebra I in 8th grade. Some will not be, but that’s just the way it is. What we need to work on is to make sure that the quality of teaching is there to increase the likelihood of success. If children’ aren’t successful, it’s more often than not because of poor teaching — I know a lot of teachers are going to complain about all other stuff, but research is pretty clear that US math teaching is rather poor compared to what you see in other successful countries.

By jim d

December 22, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

Well Jeff old friend,

since you have gone on record supporting our new math curriclum, care to explain just how this works?

By Lee

December 22, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

A couple of observations:

1) If some kids are getting the lessons with ease while others are struggling, ya reckon that’s got anything to do with ABILITY? Does it make sense to keep force feeding kids into the meatgrinder who have no chance?

2) Where’s all the teachers at? Funny how they’re blogging all day long when they’re supposed to be teaching but when they get a few days off, they’re nowhere to be found.

By luvs2teach

December 22, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

Lee - amen to your first statement…whatever happened to Piaget? While I know advances in cognitive understanding have tweaked many theories, his included, his always rang pretty true to me, based on what I saw with my children, my neices and nephews, and my friends’ children - it has also been pretty consistent with what I observe in my students. As 8th graders, they are all about 12 - 15 (don’t ask why, but that is the age range I see, with most being 13 - 14). That age range is right about when Piaget determined abstract thinking to be developing (and now research shows that some people may never move out of concrete and into abstract). Algebra is pretty abstract - allowing numbers to be represented by letters and variables…that can be a little outside the realm of some 8th graders’ ability. Why do we not want to recognize this anymore? Add to the fact that we don’t teach the basics to mastery anymore, and you have a recipe for disaster.

As to your second statement, Lee, teachers are probably out shopping and running the errands they can’t do during their non-existent lunch hour like normal people with “real-world” jobs, lol - instead they are chained in their classroom and can only escape virtually through blogging.

By GeorgiaMath

December 22, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

jim d,

I’m not Jeff, but, in principle, I also support the new GA math standards. They are organized cohesively, gradually developing more complicated ideas, with definite expectations for mastery of basic skills along the way, and developing processes of mathematics (problem solving, representations, communication, etc.).

At HS level, there is nothing sacred about algebra 1, geometry, algebra 2 partitions of mathematics. They are all part of mathematics, and there is no logical necessity that they have to be packaged into one particular way. Every teacher who were trained to teach traditional courses should be able to teach new Math 1, 2, 3 and 4.

You need to keep in minds that any standard document, GA’s or otherwise, is simply a collection of what we expect students to learn. Whether or not students will actually learn what are expected of them depends hugely on teaching.

I’m not quite sure, now that I’ve written this much, what you mean by “how this works”…

By jim d

December 22, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Wow Lee,

Let’s take em one at a time here.

ya reckon that’s got anything to do with ABILITY?

Lee, you’ve obviously stopped drinking the kool-aid which makes us understand that all children can learn.

keep force feeding kids into the meatgrinder

How else can we have them ALL prepared for college? Don’t ya know they’ll never amount to anything without a college degree?

Where’s all the teachers—-nowhere to be found

Check at the mall.

By gwinnett educator

December 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

present…lol

however, not feeling up to par so im reading today.

By jim d

December 22, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

Georgia Math,

Not every child is mathamatically inclined. Some kids won’t get it regardless of Who is teaching the concept.

And I’m afraid that without algebra I, I’d never have gotten thru algebra II.

Bottom line—the teaching of math in a sequence was successfull for a very long time. Trying to cram it all together runs a risk of failing to teach any of it. Why take the risk when a proven methodology exists?

By tom teacher

December 22, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

As a middle school math teacher, I am totally against forcing all eighth graders into ALGEBRA. What is being “taught” to our eighth graders is actually HIGH SCHOOL ALGEBRA, not middle school pre-algebra. So many students are struggling because advanced probability, equations, inequalities, functions (and more) are way over their heads.

This is the stuff that should be taught in 9th or 10th grade.

By Worried

December 22, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

By GeorgiaMath

December 22, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

jim d

Where in the new GA math standards, are they trying to teach algebra II ideas before algebra I ideas? That’s absurd. The content of the standards are still sequenced mathematically.

I agree that not every child is mathematically inclined, but that does not mean not every child can learn to solve linear equations, a typical topic in a course often titled Algebra I.

Understanding letters can represent numbers isn’t any more abstract than the understanding that those squiggly marks on papers (or computer screens) actually represent a number. What may be challenging is the concept of variables - or thinking with variables. However, even that can be built in elementary grades, and it is encountered in our everyday life. We should go beyond thinking in terms of these labels (Algebra I, II, Geometry) and think in terms of specific math ideas we want students to learn. Some of those ideas typically found in courses labeled Algebra I is perfectly within reach of most children in Grade 7. Others may be more appropriate for Grade 9.

By gwinnett educator

December 22, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

ugh..I just typed a response that my 2 yr old helped me lose.

@worried..I usually send home some sort of Math practice daily. (if I miss a day, there was a delay in receiving my copies) I feel like we need to go back to focusing on the extreme basics in K, 1 before we can do all that extra stuff. Some things just have to be learned and memorized (addition/subtraction/multiplication facts) I teach first grade and Im still bothered by students drawing little lines or counting fingers to tell me what 2+2 is. How am I supposed to teach counting money when they do not recognize numbers, let alone count by 5s, 10s, etc.?

By Worried

December 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Oh I know it is a challenge, I am not suggesting that it’s not. But at the 6th grade level there has to be more homework. How can I teacher justify a 50 question final with this amount of homework through the term?

By jim d

December 22, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

GeorgiaMath

every child can learn to solve linear equations,

Kiddin right? Or are you serious that you can magically teach these concepts to a child that has failed math for the previous 3 years? Be honest now, You get a student that has just been passed along without gaining the skills they need to master what you are teaching and you can still get the job done?

I will agree that under the right circumstance most kids will get it. However, painting with the EVERY Brush makes me call your hand on that statement.

By jim d

December 22, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

Worried,

What school is your child at? Mine came home every day in 4th-8th with at least 4 hours of homework every day. which I felt was a bit excessive.

By gwinnett educator

December 22, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

worried..I am in total agreement with you. It may also depend on the adminstration. I have been told (while teaching in DeKalb) not to give and gave homework because I would be setting the students up for failure. Their rationale was, the students do not complete the assignments..let alone turn them in. So why should we just rack up the zeros? (sigh)

By jim d

December 22, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

GeorgiaMath,

one other question.

How much linear math does on need to count change at McDonalds? I’m not attempting to be a smart A here, but I’d guess most of us have had 90 cents counted back to us in dimes because the kid didn’t know how to make change.

By Worried

December 22, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

pms

By jim d

December 22, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Worried,

Well dear,you might suggest your child work the even numbers on a separate sheet of paper if you feel the practice will help.

By Worried

December 22, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Absolutely, I don’t know that he would even pass the class without me enforcing my own practice. Math-drills.com has been a Godsend for us.

By GeorgiaMath

December 22, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

jim d

Or are you serious that you can magically teach these concepts to a child that has failed math for the previous 3 years? Be honest now, You get a student that has just been passed along without gaining the skills they need to master what you are teaching and you can still get the job done?

You are addressing a different - and important - issue. As I stated before, any standard document is simply a collection of expectations. The only thing we can expect from them is that their contents are cohesively organized, with developmentally appropriate topics. Making sure students who move on have mastered the expectations, or how to identify what students may be missing and deciding on how to provide necessary support, is a separate issue from the quality of standards.

1x+5y+10z+25w+50v=90 There are multiple solutions to this linear combination (way beyond Algebra 1, by the way). So, why should a cashier give you 90 cents change in the combination you want? Maybe they just didn’t have enough nickels.

Teaching mathematics is more about helping students to think mathematically - which goes much beyond simply solving linear equations, by the way.

By jason

December 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

worried;

I actually think students are given way too much homework. As a result, they don’t learn to study - they have this illusion that “studying” means “doing homework.” They are basically dependent on homework. Schools should stop the practice of grading homework. How many practices one needs depends on each person and on each specific topic.

Although I agree that a certain degree of automaticity is useful in mathematics, when it comes to proofs - the essence of mathematics - basic addition/multiplication/factoring/etc. facts aren’t the most critical component, are they? I’ve seen many successful math majors go down in their first proof course because they somehow lack the ability to reason logically even though they are spectacular at basics.

The point is, though, not to focus on one or the other. We need to develop both.

By Aggravated

December 22, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

My son is in 8th grade, has always scored in the 99th percentile in Math on Iowa and CogAT tests, and has always been in the accelerated math classes. He’s taking Accelerated Math 1 this year (as an 8th grader, mind you), and it’s a nightmare. He has already bounced from algebra/functions to geometry proofs to probability (some pretty advanced probability concepts, I have to say, and I have an engineering degree), back to functions and then back to geometry. The majority of the kids are struggling in the class (and this is the cream of the crop). Additionally, I have heard that at Walton HS (2nd highest SAT scores in GA, I believe), the teachers are frustrated at the number of kids who are FAILING Acc Math 1 and 2!!!! These are the smartest kids at one of the best high schools in the state! So is it the teachers, or the curriculum? Personally, as someone who has had a LOT of math, I don’t see how these kids can constantly switch gears between functions/geometry/probability and expect it to stick, when learning such advanced concepts as in high school math. There needs to be continuity. Also, I would agree that even with very smart kids, there is a developmental issue with expecting them ALL to learn such advanced (abstract) concepts in 8th grade. Better to keep reinforcing the basics and move on to the abstract concepts when they are developmentally ready. Just my 2 cents as a frustrated parent.

By Worried

December 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Aggravated

In my oppinion thats because they only teach what going to be on the test.

By Meme

December 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

I worried several years ago when we were told that all students who have to have algebra. Frankly, I don’t think it is necessary/ Of course, I don’t think we need to prepare every child for college either.

By Lynn

December 22, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

I totally agree Aggravated. I too have a 9th grader in Math I and an 8th grader in Math I through an Advanced Math class. Both are struggling as are most of their classmates.

When will the state agree that it is not the teachers or the students? It is the curriculum. It would be like teaching these state school board members nuclear physics using biology and chemistry. And oh yeah, don’t forget the discussions in the class by students who don’t know how to do the basics of Physics but can discuss among themselves how to solve the problems.

I am tired of my children being the guinea pigs of this failed experiement.

Math is a building subject. You need the basics of each area to achieve mastery. Overlapping exposure to algebra, geometry and statistics does not allow for mastery of any areas.

By catlady

December 22, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

My system bemoans its low scores on math, and has even hired 2 math “coaches”. We have a curriculum map that takes NOT AT ALL into account that some kids are not ready to move at that pace. We are instructed to EXPOSE THEM TO THE MATERIAL, not TEACH TO MASTERY. There are no requirements for students. Many of our fifth graders do not know (without using their fingers, which they sometimes still come up with the incorrect answers) that 8+5=13. But we still keep exposing them to material that assumes they have mastered basic facts and skills. Someone has decided that exposing them means they will get it, but guess what: they have to master basic skills (like adding and subtracting to 20 by the time they are 11, for example) before they can accurately come up with such things as perimeter of a rectangle, for example.

I really cannot begin to understand WHY these seemingly intelligent people cannot understand this. Our scores continue to go down the tubes, and teachers continue to be castigated for it. But… REQUIRE a kid to memorize facts? Preposterous they say. Hold a kid back who is 2 or 3 years behind in math? Preposterous, they say.

By Aggravated

December 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

Per Lynn: Math is a building subject. You need the basics of each area to achieve mastery. Overlapping exposure to algebra, geometry and statistics does not allow for mastery of any areas.

Exactly! It’s analogous to trying to teach them Spanish for 3 weeks, switching to French for 3 weeks, then to Japanese for 3 weeks, then coming back to Spanish — “What, you don’t remember your Spanish vocabulary or how to conjugate ‘ser’ and ‘estar’?” AARRRGGGHHH!!!!

As for how long it will take the state to realize their mistake — I don’t know, maybe if some of those in power have children who struggle with the new curriculum. Or maybe when the parents really start to revolt. I think an uprising is inevitable here in Cobb Co., but whether it will do any good or not, I can’t say. I did see some articles that looked like Gwinnett and Fulton had adopted a more traditional approach to teaching the new curriculum, and I would really like to find out more about that.

By Tony

December 22, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

Proven methods that work, jim d, exist in many other countries around the world and the US has ignored them for years. In all of the countries that outscore US kids in the standardized tests, a comprehensive curriculum that integrates math concepts is utilized. Singapore and Japan, most notably, expect their students to achieve the equivalent of algebra I by the end of the 8th grade equivalent, as well. So why would we in Georgia want to continue to use the same recipe that has kept our students back for all these years? It is ironic to me that so many people expect and demand that we do better for our students and then get upset the moment the work gets tough.

Someone asked “is it the curriculum or the teachers” and I must say it is neither. Any time there is a major change in curriculum, it takes a bit of time for the teachers to know and understand the new curriculum. As for mastery, that is a concept that teachers should expect and principals should support. Teachers need to work together, train together and plan together in order for them to best move the students to higher achievement.

As catlady often decries, exposure to curriculum is not sufficient. Curriculum is not a virus and does not spread to the new host. Curriculum is more like a garden that must be cultivated in the students. Unfortunately, too many teachers are given students who lack motivation and will not give the effort needed to learn new material. Can schools and teachers alone overcome obstacles like this? No. Our current approach to school reform, however, treats the schools as if they should be able to overcome any social obstacle. Otherwise, they face sanctions.

As for the “cream of the crop” failing courses now, perhaps it is time that these students faced a real challenge. Along the way through school, these students have easily achieved high grades because they were in classes with students at all levels. It should be expected that as soon as they are grouped by ability that the challenge to succeed increases. Besides, students who must grapple with concepts to learn them come out much better on the other side. Their new knowledge is much more meaningful.

Hours of homework and the practice of multiple, scripted problems do very little to improve understanding. The use of real world problems and examples in these courses is what will bolster the students’ learning. This is where our teachers fall short of those in other countries, and the fault is not theirs. Teachers must have adequate time for preparation of their lessons. This is not given to them in our current structures. The countries that produce higher achievement in mathematics provide much more planning and professional learning time for their teachers. Perhaps here is the lesson we need to learn and implement.

By Tony

December 22, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

ps: Yes, it is a holiday week and I slept a little later than usual. I have already been to the school to check the construction work and make sure all HVAC was shut down to save energy expenses. I have delivered gifts for a needy child, tended to a couple of urgent items on the “honey-do” list, and been to Home Depot. Sorry to disturb your sensibilities, Lee.

By aaron

December 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

cat,

Your fifth graders who don’t know how to calculate 8+5 without using their fingers were not taught with the new standards until this past year as 4th graders. So, can you honestly say that it was the new standards that created the predicament? I tend to think it was the old standards we had to blame.

By Is it

December 22, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Someone asked is it the curriculum or is it the teachers. It’s the discipline, Stupid!

Show me a school were there is a rules are enforced, and the teacher is supported, and I show you a school were students learn.

You think in Asia you can disobey the teacher, disrespect the teacher, verbally abuse and physically assault the teacher, all without consequences?

And people in this country want to pretend we are engaged in “reform”.

By Tony

December 22, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

aaron, in catlady’s defense, there are some schools that do not allow the teachers to push the kids too hard. As she has told the story many times in this column, her school is one of those. Regardless of the curriculum plan, without setting high expectations there is little hope for the children to truly learn.

By Larry

December 22, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

The California case wasn’t over what kids were being taught, but that the Algebra I test covered material they were not being taught.

California was using the GMAT (General Mathematics Test) for NCLB compliance and the Algebra I test for kids on an accelerated path. When the feds squawked about the GMAT in 2007, the state DoE made plans to update it to meet NCLB requirements.

The problem was, they never acted on their plan. Instead, the DoE voted to make the Algebra I test the “official” NCLB test at the July 2008 meeting. This put the cart before the horse, since it required a multi-year curricula change that was never enacted.

Interested parties can view the official court document here on the CPOGA web site.

By Tony

December 22, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the specifics, Larry. Fortunately, Georgia has acted prudently in its curriculum revisions. The only point still lacking is the provision of sufficient time for teachers to adequately learn, plan and implement the new curriculum.

By no it isn't

December 22, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

is it???

I also suggest how Asian schools develop discipline. They sure aren’t boot camps. Japanese elementary schools look much more chaotic than most boot camps US elementary schools are…

By Aggravated

December 22, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

Tony, as for your comment about the cream of the crop … this may be the case with some schools, but not in the case of my kids. My son has been in separate accelerated math classes since 3rd grade. In his middle school, the accelerated class he’s in completed 6-8 grade math (the new curriculum) in two years. Most of the kids seemed to do fine in those two years. It’s in the new high school classes, where they are learning very advanced concepts (in 8th grade), that they are having the trouble — and I personally don’t believe that the problem is the rigor or that the kids aren’t trying hard enough, it’s the bouncing around between subject matter that’s the problem! I just really have a hard time seeing how this is “better” than the “old” way of focusing on algebra for a whole year (or at least for more than 3 weeks at a time), then geometry for a whole year, etc. The continuity is interrupted, and the kids are having more difficulty learning it. Likewise, the kids in ACC Math at Walton have not been in on-level math classes prior to this year. These are kids who are taking mostly Honors and AP classes as freshmen, and yes, they are having to work hard — but a disproportionate number are failing MATH, not Honors Physics or AP World History. And they have been in this new math curriculum for 3 years already. So again, my complaint is not the rigor of the new curriculum, but the fact that, at the high school level, they are jumping around from topic to topic so quickly that nothing has a chance to stick. It maybe wouldn’t be so bad if they would spend, say, 12 weeks on algebra, 12 weeks on geometry, then 12 weeks on statistics — but in my son’s class, that’s not how it’s being done. And for the record, I have no problem with my children being challenged — I encourage it — but why do we want to make it harder to learn than it has to be? I’m all for raising standards, but teach the kids in a way that makes sense is all I’m saying.

By aaron

December 22, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this

Tony,

GPS M1N3 f. Know the single-digit addition facts to 18 and corresponding subtraction facts with understanding and fluency. (Use strategies such as relating to facts already known, applying the commutative property, and grouping facts into families.)

It’s unfortunate that school leaders aren’t sufficiently literate to understand that first graders are expected to be fluent to perform addition facts like 8+5.

Again, it is another example that issues of implementation is different one from the issue of the quality of standards.

By Tony

December 22, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this

Aggravated, the problem may lie within the curriculum map for the course. Some systems impose an artificial time table for teachers to follow. This presents serious questions about how systems implement curriculum. By not allowing teachers sufficient time to teach and make sure the kids are learning, the system insists teachers follow a time table instead.

The curriculum plan is truly designed for topics that are related to be taught nearby. Since the students have passed from Math I to Math II, the topics are advanced beyond algebra I anyway. Without knowing the specifics of the school, it is hard for me to know for sure. But, I would venture to say that the teachers do not have adequate preparation time for the course. They also are likely not given sufficient time for professional learning and working together.

By Tony

December 22, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

aaron, I agree that quality is an important issue. I am convinced that the standards are not the issue, but the teaching quality is in the schools we were discussing. Someone has decided that it is more important for the children to have an easy ride than for them to be pushed to learn. It is a shame that we have so called school leaders who would water down the expectations of learning.

By Curriculum Shmiculum

December 22, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this

For years and years, new curriculums, new reforms, same failures. Yet there is something I’ve never seen, or for that matter, even heard of. And that’s a public school that is failing, yet has no problems with discipline.

The reality is, until we are willing to have a honest dialogue on discipline, and on making systemic changes in the way we support the teacher’s authority in the classroom, both in terms of behavior and grades, essentially we are just talking sh!t.

By jim d

December 22, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this

Tony,

I really hate to push this button because of all the fall out but i really do tire of hearing about teacher planning time.

According to a report in ERIC it seems that in countries like japan and germany—teachers do more planing on their time (off the clock)

By shogun

December 22, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this

jim d

In Japan, typical middle school teachers teach 18-21 classes a week - out of 30 class periods a week, or 6 periods a day. In high school, typical Japanese teachers teach 15-18 classes a week (out of 30 classes a week). Moreover, things like “lunch room duty” is a completely foreign concept for Japanese schools.

By the way, Japanese teachers are required to be on campus 8 hours a day, and they are under 12-month contract. Their pay is mid-grade (maybe mid-upper grade) civil servants level, which is pretty decent.

Is that consistent with what you found on ERIC?

By Not in Japan

December 22, 2008 6:45 PM | Link to this

I wonder what percent of teachers are blatantly disobeyed, verbally abused or physically assaulted in Japan?

I wonder what percent of administrators in Japan refuse to write up physical assaults on staff because it will make their No Child Left Behind numbers look bad?

By Tony

December 22, 2008 9:36 PM | Link to this

jim d, quite frankly I don’t care who tires of hearing that teachers need more time to plan adequately. I don’t care who is tired of hearing that teachers need more time to collaborate. I think with all the noise that we hear about wanting schools to get better, it is about time for people to understand these are the only two ways that are going to bring quick and reliable results.

Our teachers already give their own time to grade papers, attend workshops, develop lesson plans and prepare materials. There only so many hours in a day and to continue to expect teachers to give and give and give again of their time is absolutely ludicrous.

Because teachers must use the results of student work to effectively diagnose learning needs and plan appropriately, it is essential for them to have the time to do this work. What happens to doctors that don’t get adequate time to review patient files and plan courses of treatment? What about lawyers who must have time to review case law to prepare for court? Do these things just happen? No. Neither does true teaching. Time must be devoted to preparation.

Teachers who are loaded with 130 students a day and allotted a 50 minute planning period do not have the time to adequately prepare. Our productivity cannot be measured simply by how many students we see each day, how many homework assignments we grade, nor in how much extra duty we can squeeze into the day. Our productivity is in adequately preparing students for the world to come. There is no easy measure for this, and there is no quality control on the natural resources that come to us for transformation.

There are several possible solutions to the time problem. We use one of them. Organizing the time during the school day to make sure teachers have adequate time. Students are scheduled to go fore PE, Art, Music, Computer or to see teacher specialists. This creates chunks of time for the teachers. Plans like this are in the hands of each school principal and district leaders. If these leaders really want to support teachers, they will make it happen.

By Lynn

December 22, 2008 10:44 PM | Link to this

Tony, the school district Aggravated is referencing is Cobb County. I am having the same experience with one Advanced 8th grade Math studenttaking Math and an on grade level Math I 9th grade student. I must say the most cooperative they ever are with each other is in trying to figure out how to do their Math homework. They compare teaching methods and vainly try to figure out the problems.

The textbooks are no help. There are no examples to follow. I guess this is part of the talk it out approach to figuring out Math. Discussing Literary themes may work okay this way. It definitely does not work for Math. We need to teach our students how to do the problems in a logical manner. Throwing everything including the kitchen sink in does not work well.

By Tony

December 22, 2008 11:16 PM | Link to this

Lynn, I will try to put my hands on a copy of the Math I curriculum map for Cobb. Some of your descriptions make it sound like the teachers are in over their heads. “…vainly try to figure out the problems.” Students, teachers or both?

One of the fallacies of so-called traditional teaching methods is the rote application of meaningless algorithms. While some of us mastered these and made good sense of them, it turns out that teachers in early and middle grades have difficulty understanding the principles of mathematics once you go beyond the “rules”.

Cobb has traditionally supported their teachers with decent staff development, and I’m sure they are providing some for the teachers now.

One of the other problems you described earlier today is about how many students are failing. This is an issue that middle and upper grades teachers need help with. Doing work simply to earn a grade is not what learning is about.

I maintain that the current curriculum, even though much more challenging, will help raise our students to higher levels of math competency. We must stay the course.

By catlady

December 23, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

Some systems impose an artificial time table for teachers to follow. This presents serious questions about how systems implement curriculum. By not allowing teachers sufficient time to teach and make sure the kids are learning, the system insists teachers follow a time table instead.

As in my county where the math coach comes around and tells you how you have to “catch up” to the curriculum map. One of my cooperating teachers was told to “cover” or “expose” the kids to 8 chapters in 13 days because she was “behind” the curriculum map that the coach had dreamed up (never having taught elementary math) . (Experienced teachers were to draw up the map over the summer, but the coach went ahead and did it herself and “saved” the system the expense of paying the stipends) The teacher even had to drop science and social studies for 3 weeks to catch up. She was given a day by day plan of what she would “cover” for the 13 days. Now, her kids had been mastering the skills up to then pretty well, but you can imagine how well they did after racing through 8 chapters in 13 days for the benchmark test. In insisting (with the principal’s full blessing) that the teacher do this, not only were the kids put at a big disadvantage but the first year teacher’s confidence was DESTROYED. Way to go, Brownie!

By catlady

December 23, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

I am not blaming the “new math GPS” for the mess my county is in. I blame spineless administrators who are unwilling to set realistic goals and hold students to them.(We also have a rule that limits total homework time for students all the way through 8th grade. I think it is 40 minutes for middle school)

There is even a name for this skipping around and then revisiting the subject as decried by earlier posters: spiraling.

No one is against review. That is fine, but this endless spiraling takes on the appearance of circling the drain, to me.

By jim d

December 23, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

Cat,

Sounds like you may think the kids are being flushed.

By luvs2teach

December 23, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

catlady - referring to it as “spiraling” just reminded me of something - when my neice, now a 9th grader, was in second grade, my sister called me to ask for some suggestions to help her with her math. She described this crazy system of “exposing” them to concepts - my sister was justifiably upset at the fact that her daughter wasn’t “mastering” anything and yet be expected to move on - I distinctly remember her referring to the term “spiraling.”

Well, fast forward seven years to the present - her system no longer uses this “spiraling” curriculum, but the damage is done - my neice has been, and remains still, in remedial math classes. This is not in Georgia - this is in New Hampshire. How many kids are we going to lose if it takes us seven years to work this out? I just thank my lucky stars that my son was on the front side of the crest of this wave - the last class taught under the “old” curriculum.

I’m not a math teacher, but I know that I’ve seen that the math skills required for science have weakened the last couple years I’ve taught kids who have been learning the new curriculum. I’m not against rigor - I’m not even against an integrated curriculum. However, I don’t like how this is being implemented - it’s clearly not going well. Discussing math is nice in theory, but that can’t be all you do. I’m not convinced that it is 100% pedagogically sound, as designed and taught here, and it does concern me that students (expected to or not) don’t learn key skills to mastery.

By catlady

December 23, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

jim d: you could say I think it is a pile of s**t.

Why do we take failed ideas, give them a new name, and then hail it as a breakthrough? Or make up nonsense definitions (According to Reading First, decoding words fast is fluency. Forget reading with expression and with meaning.)

“Discovering” the answer has its place, but let’s be truthful: memorizing basic math facts is a lot quicker and more efficient than “discovering” that 8+5=13 over and over and over again. And sometimes miscounting and “discovering” that it equals 14.

We will reap what we are sowing. I am so glad that my daughter with the BS in math and astrophysics is not still in K-12 because she might never have been able to get the foundation that she needed.

By Lynn

December 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Catlady, I completely agree. My children are the experimental subjects for this new curriculum. I fear that they will be in college without the basic understanding of advanced Math subjects (if they even can get into college without a Math foundation).

Tony, I am all for rigor. My eldest will graduate in May with at least 8 AP courses under his belt. Thank goodness he had the more traditional Math approach.

The Math teachers I know at several high schools are devoting an enormous amount of time and effort to the new Math standards. They are tutoring at all hours, attending additional training classes on their planning time and after school. The bottom line is that this approach is not working. While seeking rigor, how many students are we willing to sacrifice to a method that may look good on paper to Math professors but does not work in the real world of Math education?

The alarm is sounding now! Stop this approach immediately before even one more semester of students will be harmed.

By Aggravated

December 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

My son’s middle school in Cobb Co. uses the McDougal Littell Mathematics 1 textbook for GA. It does have some examples, but I think some of the topics are not explained well or thoroughly. My son’s teacher is the only teacher in the school who teaches the high school course. She also teaches the 8th grade course, which obviously is an entirely different curriculum. I don’t know whether she has an opportunity to compare notes and work together with the high school teachers in our feeder pattern, but I’m not sure it would help, since from what I hear, they are all having the same issues.

Yes, catlady, the “spiraling” is what I’m having a problem with. Some things DO have to be committed to memory, and the best way to do that is to work with the concept over and over. For example: slope-intercept formula is y=mx+b. They just need to know this … period! But when they skip from algebra/functions to geometry to stats, then come back to algebra/functions … well, they really didn’t spend enough time on algebra the first go-round to have that become ingrained in their little brains! They are getting SOOOOO much information thrown at them at once. And honestly … my 8th grader is doing things in math that I didn’t do until sophomore or junior year in high school, and in some cases (stats) college. I’m not sure that I would have understood some of the stuff at his age, and I’m pretty much a math geek.

Here’s an example of something that happened during the year. It was probably about 4 weeks or so into the year, and they were working on series — closed and recursive formulas to describe a series function. The teacher gave about 10 homework problems where they were supposed to come up with closed and recursive formulas for each example. My son did a few of them, then said, “She said if you couldn’t figure a problem out in 10 minutes to move on.” There were 3 or 4 he didn’t get. I started looking at them, and some were particularly complicated — especially since the instructions in the book said just to find a closed formula, and she wanted them to find the recursive as well. So, liking a good challenge, I decided I was going to see if I could solve them. I did finally solve all of them. There was one problem that took me an HOUR and scribbling on most of one sheet of paper to find the recursive formula. There is no way that an 8th-grader could have figured that out. So, my son goes to school the next day, and I handed him the sheet of paper and said, “Tell your teacher that it took an engineer one hour to solve that problem.” So he came home that day and said that no one in the class had solved it (really???) and that the teacher had said she couldn’t solve it, and that the kids were asking for my phone number. HA! I also looked in the textbook, and there is really no help to tell them how to solve these problems, just examples and then the answers. I think this is when I knew we were in trouble.

“One of the fallacies of so-called traditional teaching methods is the rote application of meaningless algorithms.” Tony, could you give me an example of what you mean here? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I really am just trying to figure this out. I mean, looking back on my own education, I know there were a lot of algorithms that I probably memorized at the time — and maybe memorizing them didn’t really make sense in the long run — but I don’t think I was ever just given an algorithm without being taught how it was derived. And surely we don’t want them reinventing the wheel every time they do a problem — I mean, there is a time and place for algorithms, even if you aren’t required to memorize them, don’t you think? (Maybe I’m getting a little too abstract for my own self here!!!)

By Aggravated

December 23, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

Quoting Lynn: *”The bottom line is that this approach is not working. While seeking rigor, how many students are we willing to sacrifice to a method that may look good on paper to Math professors but does not work in the real world of Math education?

The alarm is sounding now! Stop this approach immediately before even one more semester of students will be harmed.”*

Amen to that, sister!!

By jim d

December 23, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Aggravated 1:37 PM ,

HUH? :)

By tom teacher

December 23, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Someone mentioned earlier that they were dismayed at the low level of homework their 6th grade son received on a regular basis. The reality is that in many places parents complain that the homework given is excessive. Reality also is that most of the parents who complain are the ones who are really just angry that they must take time out of their busy schedule to do their child’s homework. NO ONE IS RECEIVING FOUR HOURS OF HOMEWORK EVERY NIGHT. This is one of the biggest lies ever told. If a fourth grade students goes home at 2:30, “starts his homework at 3:30”, then watches TV, eats, a snack, plays video games/surfs the web, eats dinner, has mom “check” (do) his homework, then goes to bed at 9:00, then it didn’t take four hours to “read a book for 20 minutes, complete 10 math problems, and finish a social studies worksheet” that was started in class.

What the complaint is really about is that middle class parents don’t want school to “interfere” with their home life in any way. You see watching TV, surfing the web, the kids’ soccer practice/games, going out to eat, shopping, and socializing all take precedent over education.

Next you have the working class and poor kids who don’t do any homework at all. So needless to say- nobody does homework. Elementary, middle, or high school.

By tom teacher

December 23, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Aggravated,

That’s what the problem is- you are trying to do your kid’s homeowrk for him. Listen, if he can’t do it, he can’t do it!!! This is not about trying to make sure that your child is successful (get an A). The point is that these students are struggling with work that is over their heads.

I have found through experience that parents often cover for their kids because they want them to get good grades in school, no matter what the cost. Countless teachers will tell you this. Kids as young as kindergarten have parents doing their homework for them.

By jim d

December 23, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Tom,

the biggest lies ever told

No Sir,

Don’t know about now—but I can assure you mine did. Of course that was only for a couple of years that he had teachers that used him to help everyone else in class—causing him to have to bring home his homework and class work to be done in the evening.

Unfortunately there are a FEW teachers that will take advantage of the gifted kids to make their own job easier.

By jim d

December 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Mr Tom,

Are you really Jeff??

By Lynn

December 23, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

Tom, I think in the case of Aggravated and me, we are trying to help our children understand the homework. Unfortunately for my children, I am not nearly as skilled at Math as Aggravated. I look for examples and then try to help my child walk through a problem.

My children do their homework and would rather be able to understand and finisthe homework as opposed to spending hours trying to figure out the concept on their own.

My children also receive a considerable amount of homework which they do every night. My 8th grader has all AC (accelerated courses) and often spends 3+ hours a night on homework.

By Tony

December 23, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

The best example of a rote algorithm traditionally taught in schools is the one commonly known as long division. This method is taught as a procedure for kids to follow with no effort given to develop the underlying concept of division. When I use the word “meaningless” I am referring to the students’ understanding of why an algorithm works. Teachers in the elementary level often can not explain further than the algorithm itself. As a result, the algorithm is then used in isolation to practice a set of problems on the page.

Algorithms are very helpful to the efficiency of calculations. However, what students need for success in advanced math topics is a better understanding of the concepts.

Other rote algorithms get applied to topics like fractions (cross-multiply, invert and multiply) without building the understanding of exactly what is taking place and why. Only the algorithm steps are emphasized and as a result, little mathematical knowledge is gained.

You’re example of the slope-intercept form is a good one for making this point. Are all linear equations in this form? How do you help the students generalize the form rather than emphasize rote memorization? Kindergarteners can actually use linear equations to make predictions. They do not put the equations in abstract terms, but often create graphs that are then used to make predictions. Other applications of slope-intercept form occur in statistical analysis, especially regression. You said your 8th grader was on an accelerated math track, so it is expected that s/he should be examining topics you experienced in later grades.

As for the so-called alarm sounding, it is disturbing to me that some people are so quick to determine something to be “harmful” just because it is taking a little more effort. Unless we change the curriculum and methods we use in our math classrooms, there is no hope for our children to gain access to better math skills. The rest of the world is leaving us behind in mathematics, so we are way past due for an overhaul. (This is where I can insert the need to abandon English units of measure and use SI exclusively.) No students are being harmed in this effort to improve our math curriculum.

I agree with tom teacher that the 4 hours of homework claim is a myth. We have had the good fortune to have an international student live with us a couple of years ago. She was appalled at the LACK of homework expected and she was further appalled at the complaining she heard from students at our school when the teachers gave assignments.

I do not agree with him that parents should not assist children with homework. Parents should not be so quick to cover for their kids, but assisting them with homework helps to instill the values that are important. Unfortunately, I have seen examples of parents who are quick to complain to the school on behalf of their children for homework that is “too hard”, “too long”, or “I don’t even understand this” as if they have the authority to excuse their children from the assignment. These are perfect opportunities to strengthen the bonds between home and school by getting your child appropriate help with difficult work.

By Tony

December 23, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

aggravated - I forgot to mention the importance of real world problems in helping students make sense of math concepts. Too often our textbook problems are as abstract as the concepts. In the case of slope-intercept form for linear equations, there are multitudes of examples that should be used in the classroom. As an engineer I’m sure you’ve encountered thousands of real world applications of the concept.

By jim d

December 23, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

Tony,

I must disagree, the myth is real in some cases. I’ve lived it and seen it first hand. I’ve also seen the character it helps build and can’t say that it is entirely a bad thing.

By Tony

December 23, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

I’ve also seen the character it helps build and can’t say that it is entirely a bad thing. I think this is what our exchange student was trying to tell us when she was here.

By Aggravated

December 23, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

First of all — I don’t do my son’s homework for him. I was trying to prove a point, which as it turns out I didn’t need to do when the teacher admitted that she couldn’t do the problem herself. He did not take or turn in the problems that I did, only the one which I myself wrote a note on - “It took an engineer one hour to do this problem.” (He had already gone to bed when I was trying to do them.) And yes, I will help him try to understand something if he needs help, but I do not now and never have done his homework for him. That defeats the purpose, as I’m sure we would all agree.

As for homework amounts, every school, and indeed every teacher, is different. While living in Gwinnett, my son encountered WAY excessive homework in 4th grade, which I blame totally on the Gateway. I would say he AVERAGED 1.5 hours per night, and that is time with his head down working (it of course took him much more time than this to complete, with fidgeting, taking breaks, etc … you really can’t expect a 9-year-old to sit and complete homework for 1-3 hours straight without taking some breaks). Some nights he had at least 3 hours’ worth of work. And yes, he played one sport every season, so he did have other things in his life besides school, which is totally reasonable, but school came first. That was the worst year ever. Thank goodness we moved to Cobb Co before my daughter got to 4th grade. Now my kids are in 6th and 8th grades, and I would say my daughter has a reasonable amount of homework (1 - 1.5 hours per night) and my son (the 8th-grader) probably doesn’t have enough. He does typically have math homework every night, though.

And Tony, I agree with the real world concepts being important. HOWEVER, I think trying to do too much of that too soon is putting the cart before the horse. You have to master the skill before you can effectively apply the concepts. This is why you have to have 2 semesters of calculus before you can even take any engineering classes in college (or at least I did). You have to build the foundation before you can start decorating. I get that in theory the real-world problems should help with the understandiing and reinforce the concepts, but until there is mastery, I truly believe (based on my own experience) that it can do more to confuse than help. And actually, I can’t even think of an instance where any of the concepts have been applied to real-world problems in ACC Math 1 so far, and the year is half over. I mean, other than “word problems”, which have always been around, no? Just saying.

By Lynn

December 23, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

As I was sayng….it is not acceptable to sacrifice this years and next years 9th graders to this experiment. This years 9th grade class will be the first year at each grade level taking these classes. I predict if this Math is continued that we will see dramatic declines in Math attainment which will have an impact on these students for the rest of their lives.

By catlady

December 23, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

Lynn and Aggravated: come to my county. Absolute max homework per night (4 nights a week max) is 20 minutes until grade six, when it (gasp) doubles to 40 minutes. This is all classes, put together, so teachers have to do tradeoffs about “whose” night it is. Of course, there are other tradeoffs, like a very high percentage of our kids drop out after hitting courses they cannot automatically pass in 9th grade. And the above mentioned problems with the glorification of “exposing” kids to concepts instead of teaching to mastery. More than a third of our kids fail the CRCT in reading and or math in the Spring each year, at least in the elementary grades. But, hey, it is a lower stress life, right? Don’t blame the “minority” kids for this dismal percentage, either. Our county as 16% Hispanic and less than 1% black, and a high proportion of our honor roll kids are Hispanic.

Tony, I agree about real world use of math skills, but I think first you establish the correct pattern for the computational part of working the problem, THEN you go for application. Maybe I am totally off on that, but kids have to be able to do basic computation and remember basic formulas (like p of square is 4s, for example. (Maybe I misunderstood your point. If so, sorry.)

Maybe instead of fishin’, our state leadership could address some of these problems. And I don’t mean by giving us “new and improved GPS”, either.

By Aggravated

December 23, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

I feel the same way as Lynn. It’s easy to say “stay the course” and “no students are being harmed” when it’s not your child whose future is at stake. Tony, I honestly believe your heart is in the right place, I really do. But I’m just having trouble reconciling what you’re saying with what’s actually occurring in my school system (in the high-school level courses). I don’t know if the problem is the curriculum map, lack of teacher training, or whatever — but something clearly is not working here. There are smart, highly motivated students who are struggling, not because they’re not working hard enough, but because they just don’t get it! It’s too much, too fast, and it jumps around too much. I have not talked to a single parent with a child in Acc Math 1 (8th or 9th grade) who would say their child understands math better this year than last year — and I’ve talked to quite a few. As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and I’m just not seeing it.

By catlady

December 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and I’m just not seeing it.

Aggravated, maybe what you are looking at is NOT pudding!

Sorry for the bathroom humor.

By Lynn

December 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

Catlady I like your humor. How long do you think it will take before the powers in the state BOE actually admit this error? Of course with your experience with the reading “fixes” I am guessing that it might not be until the next new fix surfaces. Which for GA will be after another state(s) has rejected it as a failure.

In regards to the homework, our middle school students do not get home until 4:45 to 5:00. With one extracurricular activity it makes for some very long nights to complete the various homework and projects. And again, it is almost nightly. We even have hours of homework and projects due when CRCTs are being given. The theory the teachers have is that the days of instruction lost to testing have to be made up at night to stay on that mythical track.

By catlady

December 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

Actually, Lynn, my county adopts multiple fixes at the same time. Of course, should something seem to work, we have no idea which fix it was that helped. Add to that, we have someone in the CO who believes in “adopting” nearly every idea, every piece of paper (literally, he whites out the county’s name) from other counties.

By Aggravated

December 23, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this

Lynn, this new method HAS failed in other states, most notably New York. I posted this along with a link earlier, but the post did not go through, so I don’t think I can post the link — but go to Google and search “regents return to old math”, and a Scholar’s Notebook article will be first on the list. I also saw somewhere that Georgia is currently the ONLY state using an exclusively integrated approach to teaching math. I can’t vouch for the validity of that statement, but if that’s true, it should tell us something. If it’s so great, why isn’t everyone else doing it? Or at least ONE of the 46 states that’s ahead of us? I’m certainly not saying that we don’t need to improve, but I’m nowhere near convinced that this is the answer. Not pudding, but something that looks a lot like it, spiraling into the drain — that was for you, catlady! ;)

By Tony

December 23, 2008 6:51 PM | Link to this

Including real-world problems in math classes gives the concept a framework that helps the students make sense of the idea. It is not the “be all and end all” of teaching. Nor should it be. There is a balance between practicing the skills and learning the concepts - they go hand in hand. You can’t put one method exclusively over the other.

Two of the major findings of TIMSS were that Japanese teachers used real-world problems as the foundation for teaching concepts and that these teachers had more time for planning and professional interactions. Neither of these is common in US schools.

By catlady

December 23, 2008 7:48 PM | Link to this

Aggravated: Remember, we are way AHEAD of other states.

Re your down the drain comment: Meerowwrr!

By Aggravated

December 23, 2008 8:28 PM | Link to this

oops, catlady, I forgot ;) ;)

So do you think Laura Diamond will ever comment in our discussion, or will she just quote us all in her next AJC article? LOL

By GeorgiaMath

December 23, 2008 8:38 PM | Link to this

cat talks about when we try multiple ideas and if “it works,” we don’t know why. We are also facing the risk in the opposite direction. Too many people are unclear about exactly what the problem is - even in Math 1, which is the only thing changed in HS this year, we must separate the particular instructional approach pushed by district leaders, or even by the state, from the actual standards. There is nothing in the GPS that prescribes a particular way of teaching - that choice/decision is made away from the standards. Just because Math 1 includes ideas from geometry, algebra and statistics, that does not mean that they must be taught at the same time. In Japan, they don’t. The particular arrangement is more appropriately called “parallel” than “integrated.” After all, mathematics is very connected, and learning of mathematics is, in part developing/understanding those connections. So, teaching them separately does not make sense. Again, the GPS itself does not say anything about using group work, as far as I know.

Someone complained about kids not being able to remember idea about functions if they have to study geometry and/or statistics in between, but we put a whole year in between Algebra 1 and 2 in the traditional approach. How is that any better? There are ideas from algebra that are useful in studying geometry and vice versa, and by studying them in parallel, we can help our students take advantage of each branch of mathematics.

Now there are probably many valid issues with the implementation. Perhaps some teachers aren’t quite prepared - though I am not sure how they are prepared with the traditional arrangement since most of the topics discussed in Math 1 (2, 3, and 4) are basically the same topics in Algebra 1, 2 and geometry. But the standards have been out there for a few years during which they could have been much better prepared. It’s unfortunate they (and perhaps more likely their supervisors and administrators) didn’t have the foresight to provide much better professional development opportunities for teachers.

Some people may feel that the traditional way was working - but it wasn’t. Perhaps the fact that those who have been successful in the past are struggling may be an indicator that the traditional way wasn’t working, too.

By Aggravated

December 23, 2008 9:59 PM | Link to this

“Some people may feel that the traditional way was working - but it wasn’t. Perhaps the fact that those who have been successful in the past are struggling may be an indicator that the traditional way wasn’t working, too.”

I don’t know whether the traditional way was “working” or not, but based on what I’ve seen with my own child, and what I’m hearing from his classmates’ parents and some parents with 9th graders, at least the ACC Math 1 route is, at this moment in time, worse. Keep in mind that these kids have been taking the new curriculum for 3 years and did well up until this year! So I don’t see how you can blame the old curriculum for the current issues with the 9th grade classes.

As for there being a year between Algebra I and Algebra II / Trig — yes, that’s true, but I would assume some review over Algebra I concepts at the beginning of the year before taking off into new material. And beyond that point, they will at least have continuity for the rest of the year.

I have no argument against raised standards per se; but the lack of continuity in teaching each given topic appears to be interfering with mastery. Like I said — teach 12 weeks of algebra, then 12 weeks of geometry, then 12 weeks of stats (or however it breaks out), but jumping between topics every 3 weeks just isn’t productive. Maybe this is just my son’s teacher, and the other teachers/ schools are doing it differently — but I do know that kids are having problems in other schools as well.

By HappyDad

December 23, 2008 11:20 PM | Link to this

aggravated,

My youngest is in 9th grade, in accelerated math 1. And he is doing fine, thank you. If your son and his friends aren’t doing well, may be it isn’t all about the new math program. Maybe it’s the teachers. Maybe it’s the schools or district who didn’t prepare their teachers well enough. May be it’s the kids themselves. Maybe they think math is just compartmentalized into algebra, geometry and statistics, when they are indeed intertwined. Maybe they have been successful because all they did was to memorize facts and formulas. I bet there are some teachers/students in your son’s school/district for whom the new program IS indeed working better.

Personally, I think my youngest is getting much better prepared mathematically than my oldest (11th grade) is (unfortunately).

I just wanted you to know that there are kids/schools where new program isn’t causing any issues nor parents being upset about it, either.

Whatever the problem your son is having, I hope you get worked it out. But, PLEASE, don’t impose your solution to all others — then, you will be making the same mistake (in your view) the state is making.

By veteran math teacher

December 23, 2008 11:58 PM | Link to this

My 9th grade Accelerated Math 1 students are doing just fine. Most of them excelled on the state practice mid-term exam. Parents of these kids contact me all the time and tell me how pleased they are with the depth and breadth of the material they are learning. I have worked very hard to set a climate of high expectations and loving suport as we have worked through the curriculum. By the way, I teach in a fairly rural school, and we have every brand of student available in Georgia.

I truly think that a lot of the difficulty with the new curriculum has to do with self-fulfilling prophecy. Many teachers, parents, and students went into this process expecting the curriculum to fail, and it appears that many of those folks have not disappointed themselves. Our school chose to work VERY hard to successfully implement the new GPS. So far, so good. We are pleased with our progress. By the way, we are exactly half-way through the curriculum at the half-way point.

Also, please hear this point loud and clear. The topics are the same. The order of topics is different. There are some “easier” topics that appear in Math 2 and Math 3. Please look at the entire curriculum. There is a color-coded document that corelates the old Alg 1, Alg 2, Geometry, and Trig with Math 1, Math 2, Math 3, and Math 4. This document can be found on the DOE site. When we provided this information to our parents two years ago, most were relieved. Change is scary for everyone. Obtaining and discussing correct information is one of the keys to being successful.

One final thought: Outstanding mathematics teachers have always integrated the math curriculum by continuously relating what has been done before with what is being done now with what is to come in the future.

By Veteran math teacher

December 24, 2008 12:10 AM | Link to this

Excellent point HappyDad! I would echo your plea. PLEASE do not impose your solution(s) on us, either. Any “fix” would mess us up badly!!

Also, I will agree with HappyDad that our 9th graders are far better prepared mathematically than any group I have taught in my 25+ years.

By catlady

December 24, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

By the way, we are exactly half-way through the curriculum at the half-way point.

So are we. Unfortunately, the kids are not! The pace called for in the curriculum map is about 1/4 faster than the class as a whole can master. This is what happens when the coach, an experienced advanced middle school math teacher, writes the map, and when the emphasis is on exposure rather than mastery.

I am speaking of an elementary school math situation, not the middle/high school curricula.

By Lynn

December 24, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

Happy Dad and Veteran Math Teacher: It is great that your students are successful. Why do you think so many are not? It is not a self fulfilling prophecy. We expect and want our students to succeed. We and many other parents would not be spending considerable time and effort on this subject if it worked even reasonably well for most students.

A telling indicator would be the EOCT results for block scheduled students and the mid year results for year long students. List these results by county and school. (Any help in getting this Laura)? Then we could see the success of the program. If some schools are doing well, then expand those teaching methods and textbooks to other schools.

Math is too important to waste on a few more years of seeing if this program works or incorporating the best teaching practices to other schools.

By candice

December 24, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

I’m coming late to this discussion, but, Lynn, do you have any data that show that any more students are failing in the new math 1? I just wonder, right now, what’s getting more attention is those who complain louder.

I’m not familiar with the EOCT, but how will the results be reported? I imagine the EOCT for Math 1 is designed for Math 1, so how will that tell the difference between the new and old programs? By the way, isn’t this the same group of the students who had a rather high failure rate on the CRCT last spring?

By Lynn

December 24, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Hi Candice

Believe me I wouldn’t be complaining if I knew my students were the only ones struggling.

And yes, this is the same class that did so poorly on last years CRCT. This class is the first class each year that is taught the new Math standards.

I invite you to seek out High School Math teachers and ask how well the new Math I is going. I have spoken to several at different schools mainly in an attempt to find out what I could be doing to supplement the current instruction for my children. All of these teachers indicated that their students were struggling and failing in high numbers especially if just test scores were used for grading with no help from homework grades.

By NGaTeacher

December 27, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

I am a Georgia high school math teacher and am very impressed by this blog. Nearly every blogger (except the one who accuses teachers of blogging during their teaching time) describes real scenarios. Our school is struggling mightily with the new Math I for several reasons. Some students still have 6th or 7th grade level skills and lack the mental maturity to process the higher skills, no matter how much they try. (This goes back to the Piaget concept, which states that everyone’s mental abilities develop at different rates; some kids could take Math 1 at 14 but others will not succeed until age 17, or never). The second reason, however, is much more prevalent, and that is the shocking mass of families (many with social problems and/or poverty) that do not give children a respect for education and the work ethic to do well in school. Just getting these kids to show up for high school is a victory of sorts. By and large,these kids have been “passed on” through elementary and middle schools, despite failing frequently, because principals do not want older troublemakers. Historically, these kids were placed into diploma “tracks” that would give them a fighting chance to graduate, most recently Tech prep and College prep tracks, with an Honors or AP offereing for the brightest and most motivated kids. Now, however, ALL kids are placed into Math I, which has a complex array of higher-level math requirements. The developmentally ready, motivated kids do OK to well, but the bulk of kids do not.
Teachers and parents are frustrated. Georgia now has a paternalistic curriculum ideology that says: here is what is good for you, so do it whether you like it or not. It was developed by college-educated middle-to-upper class people. It woks great with better students and would probably work well in private schools (although none use it-wonder why???). Probably what we should have is a more community-college type theory which asks “what do you need” of our consituents and then we provide it. In Georgia, most public school students do not come from college-educated, let alone high school-educated families. We are possibly doing a disservice to our communities by not having technical schools with a heavy emphasis on hands-on job training. So many more kids would be happier and less likely to fail, be behavior problems, or dropouts if they have more options. As the ridiculous NCLB standards grow toward 100% in 2014, look for a rising cry for these nationally.

By Hmm

December 31, 2008 12:28 AM | Link to this

I’m with Aggravated and Lynn. My son’s in 9th grade Gifted Accelerated Math I this year and it’s been an ongoing struggle. We sit down almost nightly to review and study, but the materials are horrible. The examples given don’t provide enough detail and the teachers are overwhelmed I think. We’ve received letters from the school district, it’s a well-known problem district-wide. My son has always exceeded Math standards and obviously qualified for gifted Math. Yet, his average has bounced from F, to D, to F to D to C for the entire semester. It doesn’t make sense, with his past history, that he would be having this trouble.

My coworkers with kids in the middle school Math I class are reporting the same thing. I was a Math major in college and I’ve really puzzled over some of the problems. I think the next summer school sessions are going to be interesting.

By Aggravated

January 1, 2009 12:13 PM | Link to this

Nice to hear from you, Hmmm. I’m curious as to what county you live in, if you don’t mind sharing.

I haven’t had a chance to reply to Happy Dad and Veteran Math Teacher. For the record, I’ve never been a naysayer or complainer. When I first heard how math was going to be taught, I thought it was a great idea. It didn’t occur to me that there would be any problem with the new curriculum until this year, when I started to see my son’s entire gifted math class struggling. And then I hear that kids at Walton HS are struggling. At first I had assumed it was just my child that was the problem, but now I know it’s bigger than that. I’m glad your child is doing well in Acc Math 1, Happy Dad. However, I wonder if he’s the exception rather than the rule, and perhaps he has an exceptional teacher. I can tell you at my son’s school — it’s NOT the kids that are the problem. The middle school received awards for being top 10 in the state in percentage of students to exceed standards in several categories of last year’s CRCT, including all three grade levels of math! These are students who have been succeeding in the new curriculum so far. The problem is the new Math 1 (ACC Math 1 in this case). I initially thought the problem was the teacher, until I found out that the high school teachers in our district are also frustrated by the poor performance of the students in ACC Math 1 and 2. I understand the problems NGaTeacher is describing, where kids without math aptitude are being pushed to take higher-level math. That is a definite issue, and an important one, but I’m talking about GIFTED kids here! I keep wondering if my child, who is in the 99th percentile in math on every ITBS and CogAT test, is struggling, how must the kids be faring who do not have the same aptitude? Perhaps with the socioeconomic diversity we have here in Georgia, we can’t realistically expect our students to compete, ON AVERAGE, with Japanese students, for example. Not every kid needs to be “college-ready” to jump into college calculus when they graduate from high school. I’m not saying we can’t improve. But we’ve jumped off the deep end without a life preserver. Thrown the baby out with the bath water. You get the picture.

By Amused

January 5, 2009 9:43 PM | Link to this

All,

Education in Georgia never ceases to amuse me:)

First of all, I love the way the word “gifted” is thrown around in Georgia. All children are gifted in their own special way and to label them as “gifted” or “non-gifted” in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL based on mere testing without any regard to actual school performance or behavior is harmful at best.
I have one “gifted” and one “non-gifted” at home and the latter has always out-performed the former, yet has never been given a chance to perform in middle school and was labeled as an “average over-acheiver” by one administrator who refused to move him up into more challenging courses. Lots of harm to undo here.

As for the math program, I am amused once again. It has failed miserably elsewhere, yet Georgia adopts it no questions asked. My older child has been with a math tutor, in order to be taught properly. When he starts a new unit in the classroom, the math tutor re-teaches the material how it should have been taught, then he moves on to something more basic that the wonderful, new Georgia math curriculum has “skipped over”……PRICELESS:)

Remember, when your children apply to college and they have a “D” in high school math, nobody is going to care what math curriculum Georgia was using at the time or whether your child was gifted or not. Complain to school board officials all you want, but this is not going to change tomorrow. These children need our help NOW. In the meantime, get tutors, form neighborhood help groups, have the older students help the younger ones and let’s get them through this!!!!