Mathematics Education

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Everyday Math and TERC Investigations = Bad Math Ed in US

Q: Do you prefer Traditional Math over Reform Math?

Q: If you had to rate EDM vs. Singapore Math in achieving real math proficiency, what would be your ranking on 1-10 scale (10 being best) for each program?

A: Proficiency is hard to define. I would use the preparation for an authentic Algebra 1 course (Nat'l Advisory Math Panel definition) instead.

TERC = 2,

EDM = 4,

Saxon = 7 or 8,

Singapore (Primary Math) = 10.

Clearly, supplementation may change the results for the less effective programs.

Must Read Website on TERC

A: Anyone interested in majoring in a technical area should have a much more traditional program than the reform programs. Though there is nothing intrinsically wrong with some of the reform ideas, the implementations are worse than horrible at this time.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Monday, March 28, 2011

What a novel idea!!

Let Us Teach!

What we, as teachers, need to do is take back our profession. Most teachers will take to the streets and protest over salaries, pensions and working conditions, but how many teachers would do the same if someone who has never taught their grade level or subject, imposed a new curriculum or demanded that certain pedagogy be followed?

As you know by now, I personally would not "take to the streets" over salary, but this article really expresses the frustration I feel when so much of my time is wasted jumping through hoops!

Just let us teach!

(And stop interrupting our classes!)

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Critical Common Core Concerns (C^4)

There are several things that must be considered and

addressed very soon about Common Core (CC) Standards.

Please share these concerns with YOUR State Representatives!

(1) CC violates our Constitution and blatantly usurps state's rights in the control of course of education.

(2) CC framework development violates NCLB law that prevents federal officials from activities that “mandate, direct, or control” a state’s, district’s or school’s “specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum or program of instruction.”

(3) CC state standards adoption and framework development in the majority of examples is in violation of open meetings laws and common practices in public, civic procedures that must allow time for public input, feedback, and revision.

(4) CC will inevitably be expensive for states to implement, especially those that did not receive RttT federal (coercive) funding. Each state's legislative representatives must demand a cost-benefit analysis from CC, as well as one from an independent firm, for their state. (The comparison is sure to be enlightening.)

(5) CC standards adoption and framework development disenfranchises state education policy boards, authorized under the our state laws, to make decisions in educational matters. Which begs the question: "Why would members of the National Governor's Association (NGA) wish to relinquish that control?"

It's a good thing that Texas has NOT signed-on! TX and CA standards often drive textbook content because of their sizable markets. With the Texas hold-out, teachers in other state can have some hope that high quality math content will be available post CC. (That is, IF they have the option to teach it!).

Informational Reading:

Can the Federal Government Fund Curriculum Materials?
Christopher T. Cross, who is a partner in the Washington-based education consulting firm Cross & Joftus, noted that the 1979 law that created the most recent iteration of the U.S. Department of Education prohibits the federal funding of curriculum. Cross helped write that law when he was the Republican staff director of the House committee on education and labor in 1978.

'Curriculum' Definition Raises Red Flags
"It’s impossible to make a plausible argument that decisions about even “big ideas” in curriculum won’t prescribe what happens in classrooms"
Neal P. McCluskey, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Teacher Evaluations

I was reading this March 13 article by Doug Lasken and Bill Evers in the SFGate.

They ask, "Who is the effective teacher? Is it the teacher whose students pay attention during the principal's visit, or make nice posters for the hallway, or line up quietly on the playground? Or is it the teacher whose students are learning what they need to know?"

These are great questions! Here are a few observations I'd like to point out:

1) Most school administrators don't have a math/science background. (Typically teachers in those areas don't have the time or inclination to pursue administrative posts.)

2) Available assessments are for core subject areas only, however districts across the country employ a multitude of non-core teachers.

3) School administrators perform "fly-by" evaluations of teachers in every area because they cannot possibly know every subject. They are "looking for" the latest fad in pedagogy, not the quality of the content taught. Subject matter evaluations should be performed by the department chair in that subject, otherwise there is only testing data of core subjects for administrators to consider.

4) Teachers who teach stand alone courses that are not reliant on prior learning are at a distinct advantage in every proposed teacher evaluation plan which is tied to learning outcomes that I've read. Yet, the US wants to encourage more students to go into math/science teaching. Hmm...

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous