tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post1364377489234009091..comments2023-09-09T08:21:55.454-04:00Comments on MathNotations: Interview with Prof. Lynn Arthur Steen - Part IIDave Marainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13321770881353644307noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-13436598571887012012007-09-28T12:36:00.000-04:002007-09-28T12:36:00.000-04:00Ah, there will be no resolution here folks...Actua...Ah, there will be no resolution here folks...<BR/>Actually, I'm going to be doing some consulting with K-12 math teachers in a school district in my area and I intend to begin our work together by having them read through Prof. Steen's interview and every one of the comments!I think it's a real 'page-scroller' that will set the tone for our work together. Steve, despite your insistence that everything can be reduced to choice, higher expectations and mastery, I just don't accept that there are simple answers to these issues. Public schools are part of a structure that needs change but this change will probably occur like most other changes in education -- very slowly. I do believe that we may not have Sputnik to spur radical change but we do have international comparisons of students and the realities of where our technological expertise will be coming from in the next few decades. <BR/><BR/>Steve, I do have one question for you, which is rhetorical. How many classified children of your own do you have? Children with a range of learning disabilities but who are capable of being mainstreamed in some classes? Inclusion is not a 'choice' in public education, Steve -- it's the law. We may not all agree that Federal mandates like these are in the best interests of the regular ed population, but there other points of view out there, different from yours, on this score. I personally have extensive experience in this area. It has helped to reshape my thinking about how incredibly difficult it is to educate 'all' of the children, but that's what schools are required to do. It does take extraordinarily talented and committed professionals to find ways to challenge all the children in her/his classes, but every day millions of wonderful teachers are trying their best to do just that. <BR/><BR/>Whether you choose to respond to these comments or not, well, that too is a matter of choice...Dave Marainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321770881353644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-73845720298233174662007-09-28T12:10:00.000-04:002007-09-28T12:10:00.000-04:00Most schools allow choice in math in grades 7-12. ...<I>Most schools allow choice in math in grades 7-12. </I><BR/><BR/>Choice? Most schools offer some kind of ability grouping and/or acceleration in grades 7-12, but kids are placed according to placement tests and/or teacher recommendations, not parental or student "choice".<BR/><BR/><I>Besides, K-6 educators don't want proof. They just don't want choice, by definition.</I><BR/><BR/>It's clear that that's your <I>opinion</I>.<BR/><BR/><I>Singapore Math is "inadequate"?</I><BR/><BR/>I think you know perfectly well that that was not the point I was making.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Lack of choice is not based on proof or responsibility. It's based on opinion and control.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, in your <I>opinion</I>mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-10461389628196090852007-09-28T09:59:00.000-04:002007-09-28T09:59:00.000-04:00"I also understand why schools are reluctant to of..."I also understand why schools are reluctant to offer it without "proof" that what we are proposing to choose for our kids is at least as good as what the school thinks (its opinion*, yes) is best."<BR/><BR/>Most schools allow choice in math in grades 7-12. Besides, K-6 educators don't want proof. They just don't want choice, by definition.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"It's quite simple. In the final analysis, it's the school that is "on the line" to make sure their kids meet NCLB requirements, and whose reputation is on the line if their precious test scores drop."<BR/><BR/>It's quite simple. K-6 schools don't want choice by definition. High schools allow choice. Most schools provide choice in 7th and 8th grades. The choice many are asking for in K-6 is for more rigorous curricula, not less. Besides, their reputation in math education (as reflected by standardized test scores) is not very good to begine with.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"So, that's why their opinion trumps everyone else's -- they're the ones who have been made responsible for students' progress."<BR/><BR/>Baloney! Their opinion is for low expectations. The standards are low.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"[* for EM, that opinion is backed up by years of research. I believe, as I know you do, that that research may be severely flawed, but it is there.]"<BR/><BR/>Flawed, but you'll use it anyways? Everyone else has to provide "real" proof? Check out What Works Clearinghouse. The very, very small percentage of positive results for EM are only for small relative changes. In fact, there is little good educational research on anything. Even WWC is grasping at straws to make it seem like their existence is of any value. In fact, many schools are using the insufficient data provided by WWC as justification of EM. In spite of all of the extra emphasis on data collection, statistics, and real-world problems in EM, it hasn't made schools smarter in analyzing data.<BR/><BR/>I had to explain to my son (his textbook didn't do it) that how one interprets a graph depends a lot on how you display the data. If you compress or eliminate the lower end of the vertical axis, you can make the data trend look flat or very steep. Many are scaling the EM data to make the benefit look good on an absolute scale. Sorry. They flunk even reform math.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"If some parents came along and made the school offer a choice of some inadequate program that they thought would be easier for their kids, and those kids did not meet state standards, it is the school that would get dinged for that. So, IMO, the school must demand "proof" that what anyone else is proposing or demanding be as good as what they want to do."<BR/><BR/>"Inadequate?" Singapore Math is "inadequate"? This is not about "some parents". This is about decades of complaints by professors, mathemeticians, engineers, and scientists. This is not about lowering standards. How can schools demand proof when they can't provide it themselves? This isn't about proof. It's about control. Schools don't require proof when they select curricula like EM.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"... but once you start offering "choice", how do you draw the line as to what parents may choose, if not by requiring proof that what parents propose is adequate."<BR/><BR/>See above. If decades of complaints by lots of professionals don't make any difference, then the issue isn't about a line. Besides, grades 7-12 provide choice.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"If parents' opinions are to trump everything, ..."<BR/><BR/>Strawman.<BR/><BR/>"... it must be the case that parents are held responsible if kids don't progress, and that just isn't the way the system is currently set up (unless you choose to homeschool, of course)."<BR/><BR/>Schools blame parents, kids, and society all of the time (not without some justification). But when 50% of fourth graders can't say how many fourths are in a whole (NAEP test), then how much worse can it get? This is about K-6 teaching philosophy and control, not proof. Schools can't have it both ways. On one hand, they use "responsibility" to prevent others from making changes or demanding choice. Then, on the other hand, they blame external causes for bad results. I'm more than happy to relieve them of their responsibility. I'll bet they wouldn't like the trade-off. Besides, before NCLB they weren't offerning choice anyways.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"There needs to be some way for parents to at least share the responsibility if an "alternative" program that they chose for their kids fails to produce the required results, and I'm not really sure how you'd implement that."<BR/><BR/>So K-6 schools really would like to provide choice, but they don't know how? I don't think so. No school or teacher in their right mind would say that Singapore Math (as a choice!) would be worse than EM or TERC. Still no choice. Schools don't want choice, by definition. They want full-inclusion. Absolutely no tracking is allowed. They see choice as a form of tracking and they would be right. Singapore Math is so much stronger than what they are currently using.<BR/><BR/>Lack of choice is not based on proof or responsibility. It's based on opinion and control.SteveHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03956560674752399562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-68276341512455812142007-09-26T12:23:00.000-04:002007-09-26T12:23:00.000-04:00I understand why you and I and other well-informed...I understand why you and I and other well-informed parents want choice for our kids.<BR/><BR/>I also understand why schools are reluctant to offer it without "proof" that what we are proposing to choose for our kids is at least as good as what the school thinks (its <I>opinion</I>*, yes) is best. It's quite simple. In the final analysis, it's the school that is "on the line" to make sure their kids meet NCLB requirements, and whose reputation is on the line if their precious test scores drop. So, that's why their <I>opinion</I> trumps everyone else's -- they're the ones who have been made responsible for students' progress.<BR/><BR/>[* for EM, that opinion is backed up by years of research. I believe, as I know you do, that that research may be severely flawed, but it is there.] <BR/><BR/>If some parents came along and made the school offer a choice of some inadequate program that they thought would be easier for their kids, and those kids did not meet state standards, it is the school that would get dinged for that. So, IMO, the school must demand "proof" that what anyone else is proposing or demanding be as good as what they want to do. <BR/><BR/>I know perfectly well that that's not what <B>you</B> are asking for, that you're asking to be able to choose a particular curriculum that I agree would be better for most kids than EM, but once you start offering "choice", how do you draw the line as to what parents may choose, if not by requiring proof that what parents propose is adequate.<BR/><BR/>If parents' opinions are to trump everything, it must be the case that parents are held responsible if kids don't progress, and that just isn't the way the system is currently set up (unless you choose to homeschool, of course). There needs to be some way for parents to at least share the responsibility if an "alternative" program that they chose for their kids fails to produce the required results, and I'm not really sure how you'd implement that.mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-90002418836173160962007-09-26T09:16:00.000-04:002007-09-26T09:16:00.000-04:00"It's just not clear to me that those problems are..."It's just not clear to me that those problems are caused by EM, as opposed to the refusal to ability group students, lack of in-class differentiation, etc."<BR/><BR/>Then you need to do your own research. Obviously, my detailed explanations didn't raise any doubts. This is common. Many teachers can't believe that EM is structurally flawed. They claim it's just the implementation. But this is always the case. Good teachers can teach math with almost any lousy curriculum. Imagine what could happen with a good curriculum.<BR/><BR/><BR/>1) EM doesn't allow ability grouping. Everyone is on the same page.<BR/><BR/>2) Their idea of differentiation relates to expectations and the different ways people learn, not differentiation of material.<BR/><BR/>It's very difficult to turn EM into something it isn't.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ultimately, it's not my job to convince you or any school to change their opinion, and that's what it is. Opinion. There is a huge difference of opinion about what constitutes a proper math education. Many parents want something different, and many others would want it too when they see it in action. The onus is on the schools (not parents) to show why they cannot provide choice. Schools and teachers cannot force their own opinions of education and expectations on everyone and then offer no choice. People like Prof. Steen can't assume that parents are stupid and incapable of understanding the issues.<BR/><BR/>Schools and teachers don't want to admit that a large portion of what they do is based on assumptions and opinions. They get to pick a curriculum based on whatever they want, but then require "proof" from others who want a change, or even a choice.<BR/><BR/>The Math Wars is all about academic turf. Parents, professors, mathemeticians, engineers, and scientists have been arguing for (at least) choice in K-8 mathematics for years. Schools and teachers don't want to lose the right to force their opinions on others. They don't even want to allow choice.SteveHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03956560674752399562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-84580255426925998052007-09-25T13:34:00.000-04:002007-09-25T13:34:00.000-04:00It sounds like your district has problems with its...It sounds like your district has problems with its math program. It's just not clear to me that those problems are caused by EM, as opposed to the refusal to ability group students, lack of in-class differentiation, etc.mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-28689453030324832942007-09-25T09:55:00.000-04:002007-09-25T09:55:00.000-04:001) All of my posts had nothing to do with making t...1) All of my posts had nothing to do with making the best of an existing situation.<BR/><BR/>2) All of my posts had nothing to do with your school.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But, since you brought it up,<BR/><BR/>"Our highest group covers the skills through pre-algebra. Kids who master those skills work on Algebra, but generally individually, with a tutor to touch base with them once a week. They could go beyond that as well, though we generally (in consultation with parents) prefer to intersperse more really good enrichment at this point and not accelerate them further than the standard honors stream, which expects freshmen to be ready for honors geometry."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Normally, kids should get pre-algebra in 7th grade and algebra in 8th grade. Standard honors tracks in high schools usually require at least a 'B' average on a rigorous algebra course in 8th grade. It sounds like you think that all they need to do is to "touch base with them once a week" in algebra. Are you talking about 8th grade? Most schools offer two or three levels of math in 8th grade, including honors algebra.<BR/><BR/>Your school may be able to pull it off. I can't comment specifically, but this is a real problem in many other schools. Math curricula and decisions made by schools in 4th or 5th grade set kids onto non-honors ("life skills") tracks and parents don't figure it out until it's too late. In some cases, it's worse than that. Our school used to use CMP (stopped last year, finally!) which did not meet the requirements for entering honors geometry (or even algebra) in 9th grade. Very surprised ('A') students and their parents had to scramble to get ready for high school. Now, (like many other schools), they provide a class using the same algebra text that the high school uses. The only issue left is to prepare more kids for that track. This will not be done using a curriculum like Everyday Math, which leaves expectations (mastery) up to the kids or the state. Algebra in 8th grade should be the norm, not the exception.<BR/><BR/>Whether your school can get something else to work or not doesn't matter much. Some schools and parents like a more complete un-schooling approach. That's OK, but just don't force it on my child. In fact, I don't want to force my ideas or opinions (like a normal path to algebra in 8th grade) on anyone else. The only option is choice. Although most schools provide a choice of a rigorous algebra course in 8th grade, they don't provide a path (choice) to get there. I didn't get any help from my parents to get to a course in algebra in 8th grade, but that's unlikely to happen nowadays unless you're a math brain or get outside help.SteveHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03956560674752399562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-52978168517359792732007-09-24T19:57:00.000-04:002007-09-24T19:57:00.000-04:00By the way, I'm not trying to say that all schools...By the way, I'm not trying to say that all schools should do math the way my kids' school does it. I'm only making the point that a skilled teacher can effectively differentiate over a wide range of levels. It's hard, but in a situation where ability grouping is not done, it's a necessary part of the teacher's job.<BR/><BR/>Ability grouping has many benefits, but if you can't have it, all is not necessarily lost.mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-82879418691475755592007-09-24T17:47:00.000-04:002007-09-24T17:47:00.000-04:00This EM website says that each grade level comes w...<A HREF="http://www.wrightgroup.com/index.php/componentfeatures?isbn=007608972X" REL="nofollow">This EM website</A> says that each grade level comes with a Differentiation Handbook:<BR/><BR/><I>Grade-specific handbook provides that helps teachers plan strategically in order to reach the needs of diverse learners.</I><BR/><BR/>Has anyone seen it and know what it really contains?<BR/><BR/>I wasn't trying to say that putting 3 grades worth of kids in one math group was "acceleration" but it certainly requires a great deal of differentiation! There are kids in the same group learning to count, add with manipulatives, understand place value, carry and borrow, all in the same group. They are not all doing the same work at the same time, of course. All I am trying to say here is that "differentiation" can be used to accomodate the needs of very diverse learners. <BR/><BR/>What <B>is</B> acceleration is when a 6yo demonstrates mastery of the materials covered in that group and moves into the group that's working on multiplication, division, fractions, decimals, etc. And this does happen in our system, albeit rarely. Enrichment would be another reasonable (IMO) alternative for a 6yo who "finished" the K-2 curriculum, but it is a lot more work than letting them accelerate at that level. We do work enrichment in throughout as well.<BR/><BR/>Nothing really gives at the top of the group, because expectations can be set on an individual basis, and eventually the student will move to a higher group. Our highest group covers the skills through pre-algebra. Kids who master those skills work on Algebra, but generally individually, with a tutor to touch base with them once a week. They could go beyond that as well, though we generally (in consultation with parents) prefer to intersperse more really good enrichment at this point and not accelerate them further than the standard honors stream, which expects freshmen to be ready for honors geometry.mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-60896555377122068452007-09-24T15:18:00.000-04:002007-09-24T15:18:00.000-04:00" ...what does EM say the other students who have ..." ...what does EM say the other students who have mastered it are supposed to be doing?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>In EM, everyone moves along at the same pace. Everyone is on the same page of the school and home workbooks. The kids who don't understand the material have to move on even though they haven't mastered the material (or even half-understand it). EM thinks this is OK because they will see the material again. <BR/><BR/>Spiraling in EM is not about using previously-mastered material in a more complex fashion. It's about seeing that same material over and over, whether you've mastered it or not. For those who have mastered the material, they consider it a review. For those who haven't yet mastered the material, they get to work on it some more.<BR/><BR/>You might call this differentiation over time or of mastery, rather than differentiation of material. <BR/><BR/>One of the biggest complaints of EM is that they introduce new topics without giving enough time to master previous material. There is little careful development of the material. This gets worse in the later years of EM. I might have mentioned before that I spent this last summer going over sixth grade EM (the new edition) with my son so that he could start taking 7th grade pre-algebra in sixth grade. By sixth grade, EM is desperately trying to make sure that eveyone is up to speed on mastery. Math Boxes are the main tools for doing this and they dominate the lessons. They still introduce new material, but some of it is more appropriate for 7th grade pre-algebra. Everybody has to do these problems, even if they are struggling with the review Math Boxes. It makes EM seem advanced, but it's not a careful introduction and development of each topic. They just throw new material at the students. It doesn't matter to EM because the students will see it again. EM has no mechanism for ensuring mastery except repeated exposure. That's the point. I call this repeated partial learning.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Inside of each EM lesson are two or three pages of Math Boxes. Each of these pages is broken into a number of rectangular boxes, each with a few review problems to do. These problems don't have anything to do with the current lesson, and each box has nothing to do with any other box. So, right in the middle of a lesson of new material to learn, students have to do these math boxes. There are so many math boxes and so much jumping around of the material in the math boxes, it's impossible for a teacher to spend class time to review the skills needed for any of the review problems if a student didn't master it the first time. The kids are on their own. In all of my son's previous EM classes, these boxes were self-corrected in class and not turned in. They just moved right along. Speaking of which, if You ever look at all of the books and workbooks that come with EM, add up the number of pages and divide by 180. There is way too much "stuff". It can't be done. <BR/><BR/>My son's fifth grade teacher didn't have time to cover the last 30 percent of the course. She ran out of time. She either had to fly through the course or skip part and take some time to help struggling students. The advanced students twiddled their thumbs and never got the material that they were ready for. It doesn't matter because EM throws it at them like splatter in the middle of page-after-page of Math Boxes. EM is not set up to allow kids to skip Math Boxes and move ahead to new material. Everyone is on the same page. Differentiation in EM means different levels of mastery, not different material.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"In the heterogeneous groupings I've experienced (and I'm talking about 3 grade levels worth of kids in one groups, so there's tons of spread in abilities), the kids who have mastered adds and subtracts to 20 would be working on things like 3-digit adds and subtracts with no re-grouping, and also learning carrying and borrowing. I now think that this is what you're calling "acceleration". I would call this 'differentiation'."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Three grade levels of kids in one group is not common, but this is not real acceleration. If you don't allow kids to move on to material in the next level, then it's really just compacting. Some schools like to fool parents and call this acceleration. Since most schools don't allow acceleration past the material defined for that grade, the only thing they can offer is enrichment. If the grade-level expectations are low (and they are), enrichment can't solve the problem. <BR/><BR/>True acceleration requires separation by ability. Even if you put three grade levels together, something has to give at the top end of the group. Differentiation, by definition, is used to group kids with widely different abilities. At least some of the time, these kids work together in mixed-ability groups. Prof. Steen argues that this is best for all kids. It is not. When ability differences get past a small range, separation and acceleration are necessary. Since many schools can't seem to provide math curricula that set high expectations of mastery and coverage of material, enrichment can't solve the problem, but that's what they claim.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"When you say EM advocates "differentiation" but that it "can't work" because expectations are too low, that doesn't make sense to me. "Differentiated instruction" should by necessity include "differentiated expectations". Sounds like maybe your school just doesn't get how to do differentiation? Or again, maybe we're using the same word to mean different things."<BR/><BR/><BR/>EM says that it's OK for each student to absorb whatever he/she can. It doesn't differentiate material. Expectations of mastery are low because that's the fundamental permise of EM. You might call this self-differentiation. There is no mechanism for teachers to decide whether students need extra time or a kick in the rear. For other subjects, the school will differentiate material or expectations explicitly, but it's easier to get away with this in non-math subjects. I don't agree with this, but it's less damaging than in math. In EM, kids who need a slower, more in-depth pace just get pushed along and told that they will see the material again. The problem is that later on, there is little or no time for explanations. There is so much "stuff" in EM, that you can't slow down unless you skip material. EM says that mastery will come (automatically?), but it doesn't. The best schools edit lots of junk out of EM, they slow down, and they don't allow any delay in mastery. They should just get a new curriculum.<BR/><BR/><BR/>All of this still doesn't deal with the underlying issue of separating kids by ability or level. Schools can't increase student ability ranges with full-inclusion classrooms and then say that differentiation will solve the problem.SteveHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03956560674752399562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-91592863834451142162007-09-23T00:13:00.000-04:002007-09-23T00:13:00.000-04:00Apparently, I am not actually capable of sitting o...Apparently, I am not actually capable of sitting on my hands. :-/ But I'll keep it brief for a change.<BR/><BR/>1) In a class of 3rd graders where some students still haven't mastered addition and subtraction up to 20, what does EM say the other students who have mastered it are supposed to be doing?<BR/><BR/>2) What would you, Steve, like the kids who have mastered adds and subtracts up to 20 to be doing while the struggling kids work on that?<BR/><BR/>In the heterogeneous groupings I've experienced (and I'm talking about 3 grade levels worth of kids in one groups, so there's tons of spread in abilities), the kids who have mastered adds and subtracts to 20 would be working on things like 3-digit adds and subtracts with no re-grouping, and also learning carrying and borrowing. I now think that this is what you're calling "acceleration". I would call this "differentiation". <BR/><BR/>Once kids have mastered carrying and borrowing and other similar-level skills, they would move to the next group, and spiral on topics related to multiplication, division, fractions, etc... If they do this at a younger age than usual, I'd call this "acceleration".<BR/><BR/>When you say EM advocates "differentiation" but that it "can't work" because expectations are too low, that doesn't make sense to me. "Differentiated instruction" should by necessity include "differentiated expectations". Sounds like maybe your school just doesn't get how to do differentiation? Or again, maybe we're using the same word to mean different things.<BR/><BR/>Ok, that was only brief for large values of brief. :-}mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-58292793789724373052007-09-22T22:40:00.000-04:002007-09-22T22:40:00.000-04:00"I still don't really understand what you're tryin..."I still don't really understand what you're trying to advocate when you say "acceleration". You seem to be meaning "use a rigorous curriculum and require mastery". These are both things with which I heartily agree. They also have nothing to do with any educational definition of "acceleration" that I have ever seen."<BR/><BR/>Then you have a very narrow understanding of acceleration. I'll try to be as clear as possible. <BR/><BR/>1. The fundamental assumption of many K-6 schools is full-inclusion. Schools track by age and include kids who used to be separated and sent to other schools. This also means no separate gifted and talented programs or pull-outs. This is a noble idea, but it doesn't come without a price. <BR/><BR/>2. To get full-inclusion to work, they use team teaching, set lower expectations, and use a spiraling curriculum that is built around no set dates for mastery. This is the fundamental premise of Everyday Math. This is one of the biggest reasons for its popularity, not that it's such a good curriculum. (and it isn't. It is structurally flawed.)<BR/><BR/>3. This approach to spiraling allows schools to maintain full-inclusion and hide behind a veneer of "no drill and kill", "conceptual understanding", and "real-world" problem solving.<BR/><BR/>4. What this happy talk hides are low expectations and a slow pace. I told you twice about our school finally trying to finish up adds and subtract to 20 in third grade. The reason for this is full-inclusion. They can't expect more from many kids.<BR/><BR/>5. To solve this problem, they push "differentiated instruction". This is supposed to allow full-inclusion classrooms to meet the needs of all students. It can't because the expectations are too low.<BR/><BR/>6. The primary method of differentiation is enrichment. They can't allow "acceleration" of material as a way to differentiate (within a curriculum and within a classroom) because it makes mixed-ability, child-centered learning impossible, and THAT is the main purpose of full-inclusion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Schools proceed to talk about the wonders of differentiation and enrichment, but what they are really saying is that they WILL NOT provide acceleration of content and skills because it can't work with full-inclusion - their fundamental assumption. That's why you see people like Prof. Steen saying that acceleration is not that important; that enrichment is all you need.<BR/><BR/>When you come along and talk about enrichment as the only thing you need, you sound just like them. I don't hink you are, but you don't seem to see what's going on here. This is NOT a small problem. You say that you like the idea of separating kids by ability, but for many schools, that cannot, will not, ever be a possibility, by definition, until 7th grade. Expectations are low, math curricula are bad, and they don't allow acceleration in their full-inclusion classrooms, only enrichment.<BR/><BR/>My son is in sixth grade and last week was in a group of three kids who were working on a social studies poster. (a collage in sixth grade!) The girl in his group was just cutting up tiny bits of paper all over their work and complaining to the teacher about the other two kids in her group. My son has no idea what is wrong with her and absolutely no preparation or training on how to deal with kids like this. This is what full-inclusion is like; a social experiment first, education second. As I said before, this is a noble idea, but there is a price. The price is low expectations, a slow pace, and a very fuzzy idea of what constitutes a proper K-6 education.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Acceleration is a term that can be used to mean much more than separating kids by grade or classroom for a particular curriculum. Acceleration versus enrichment is a common focal point in many discussions of full-inclusion and differentiated instruction. Parents want acceleration. The schools give them enrichment.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"If it's the case that Everyday Math never checks or requires mastery, then that is indeed a problem. It would be interesting to know if when folks observe EM to be lacking in that way, if that is inherent to the design of EM,..."<BR/><BR/>Never, or lacking? EM states cleary that there is no expecation of mastery at any particular time. This doesn't mean never, and many schools are smart enough to impose some level, but it's not required. If you've never seen it, you should. The Math Boxes are the worst. I could teach EM well, but that's not the point. Other (non-reform math) curricula are better.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"But if you're really concerned about students who you claim get "low expectations" at home as well as at school, I don't see how "choice" is the solution."<BR/><BR/>Schools can't do anything about parental help at home, so they better do something about expectations at school. This doesn't mean raising low cut-off standards a little higher for all. It means choice. Parents may not be able to help with math homework at home, but they (and the school) can push kids into better curricula. Individual educational opportunity is not improved by raising low cut-off standards.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"(If, on the other hand, it is not the expectations themselves that correlate with affluence, but rather the ability to do anything about them, then choice could help.)"<BR/><BR/>It's both; expectations and the ability to do something about them. Many poor have expectations too. They might not be as well-defined, but they have no way to do anything about them. If urban kids were given a free ride and the choice to go to a fancy private school, not many parents would say no, and that's the only expectation they need.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"It is you (and to some extent Dave) who seem to be interpreting my words more broadly than I wrote or intended them. "<BR/><BR/>It's because you don't understand how many schools pit acceleration and enrichment against each other. Many schools lower expecations and hide behind enrichment.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"1) I think that a spiral curriculum can be well implemented and work well for children with a wide variety of abilities and aptitudes."<BR/><BR/>As I said before, all curricula do spiraling at some level. There is nothing wrong with spiraling in general. The problem is that spiraling is used by reform math to allow full-inclusion and delayed mastery. Everyday Math is a classic example. It's spiral consists of repeated partial learning. Math Boxes are used in the desperate attempt to somehow get kids to eventually figure it out themselves someday. This is really nothing about using previously mastered material in more complicated situations.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"2) I think that teaching problem solving, using challenging problem and investigations (even beyond what Singapore already includes) is an important and valuable part of math education for all students (even those still working toward mastery of the underlying skills), and that mastery need not be traded away to make the time to do it. (As a poor compromise, I'd recommend offering this as "enrichment" for the high achievers, at a minimum.)"<BR/>"<BR/><BR/>Boy, I would too, but reform math (with full-inclusion) is so far away from this point that just getting the option or choice of Singapore Math (without enrichment) seems like a dream. Do you really understand how many educators despise Singapore Math? And it has nothing to do with any so-called lack of enrichment. You seem to be focused on some sort of perfection while the rest of the world is struggling with meeting trivial math standards. Have you looked at the NAEP tests and results. We're not talking Singapore Math-type enrichment here.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"(even those still working toward mastery of the underlying skills)"<BR/><BR/>You have to understand that this is just the sort of argument used to justify delayed (or never) mastery of skills. You have to be very careful how you define "mastery" and "delayed".SteveHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03956560674752399562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-23322401896233376362007-09-21T13:19:00.000-04:002007-09-21T13:19:00.000-04:00Steve, sorry, I still don't really understand what...Steve, sorry, I still don't really understand what you're trying to advocate when you say "acceleration". You seem to be meaning "use a rigorous curriculum and require mastery". These are both things with which I heartily agree. They also have nothing to do with any educational definition of "acceleration" that I have ever seen.<BR/><BR/>I like Singapore math, and I have no problem with requiring mastery -- of course I agree that mastery should be required. This is not inherently incompatible with the use of a spiral curriculum. A good spiral curriculum implementation will have students re-visit topics <B><I>until they master them</I></B>. At the same time, the seeds of more complex topics are sown. A good spiral curriculum implementation would be able to support children still learning adds and subtracts to 20 and also those who have mastered that and are ready for harder addition and subtraction. I wouldn't call that "acceleration" I would just call that proper implementation of a spiral curriculum, which includes different expectations for different children, based on their current degree of mastery of the skill being worked on.<BR/><BR/>If it's the case that Everyday Math never checks or requires mastery, then that is indeed a problem. It would be interesting to know if when folks observe EM to be lacking in that way, if that is inherent to the design of EM, or whether it is being mis-implemented, possibly due to a lack of teacher training?<BR/><BR/>Again, if it's the case that EM doesn't support differentiation of expectations based on individual students' levels of mastery, that is also a problem. Again, I don't know if that would be a fault of the program, or of those implementing it. And of course, even if EM does theoretically do these things "right", if it is so hard to implement correctly that it is being implemented incorrectly all across the country, then that too is a problem!<BR/><BR/>I also have no problem offering parents a choice between a Singapore-like curriculum, and an EM-like curriculum. But if you're really concerned about students who you claim get "low expectations" at home as well as at school, I don't see how "choice" is the solution. (If, on the other hand, it is not the expectations themselves that correlate with affluence, but rather the ability to do anything about them, then choice could help.) <BR/><BR/>There seems to be a mis-perception here that I'm defend "reform math" or to represent some "side" of an argument about particular reform curricula. I'm not here to participate in the "Math Wars" per se. I've made specific comments and arguments about specific statements and situations. I have never represented myself as a representative of any particular Math War position. It is you (and to some extent Dave) who seem to be interpreting my words more broadly than I wrote or intended them. <BR/><BR/>I'm sharing my own experiences and observations here. With a well-implemented spiral curriculum that's not related to any major "reform curriculum". With taking time to include non-routine problem solving in the curriculum for all students. <BR/><BR/>Mastery is good, choice is good (within reason), differentiation is good, ability grouping is good. We don't disagree as much as you seem to think we do, Steve. <BR/><BR/>I think our main differences are that:<BR/><BR/>1) I think that a spiral curriculum can be well implemented and work well for children with a wide variety of abilities and aptitudes.<BR/><BR/>2) I think that teaching problem solving, using challenging problem and investigations (even beyond what Singapore already includes) is an important and valuable part of math education for all students (even those still working toward mastery of the underlying skills), and that mastery need not be traded away to make the time to do it. (As a poor compromise, I'd recommend offering this as "enrichment" for the high achievers, at a minimum.)<BR/><BR/>I'm going to try very hard to shut up now. I've explained my positions, observations, arguments, etc. multiple times. If I have still failed to make myself clear, making additional attempts will make any difference. Anyone who was likely to be convinced by my arguments should already be convinced, and I doubt anything else I say will convince anyone else. <BR/><BR/>Steve, thanks for the civil discussion. Dave, and Prof. Steen, thanks for the opportunity and instigation.mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-75970643304198995422007-09-21T11:49:00.000-04:002007-09-21T11:49:00.000-04:00"The definition I am using (which corresponds to t..."The definition I am using (which corresponds to the one used in literature about teaching gifted students) is allowing students who are ready for a higher grade level to move to it at a younger age."<BR/><BR/>We're not just talking about gifted students.<BR/><BR/>This all started on a previous thread in response to Prof. Steen's answers to questions about math education in general. The Math Wars is all about big differences of opinion over grade-level content and required levels for mastery of skills. All of this is NOT about enrichment. This is about educators like Prof. Steen who seem to get a kick out dissing parents and college professors and saying that they (K-12 educators) have the final authority over what math is or is not for K-12. I have said before that there is a large academic turf battle to this war and parents are ignored.<BR/><BR/>You seem to be hung up about enrichment. Who can be against enrichment? This is like the use of balance. Who can be against balance? Generally speaking, enrichment is good, but there has to be a trade-off, unless you demand that kids attend after-school enrichment. What are you giving up to get this enrichment? You seem to be saying that there are no trade-offs, that enrichment is always good. This is NOT the case. <BR/><BR/>Then, you go further away from the original discussion by assuming that the curricula are generally good (or can't be changed), so adding enrichment is always good. That's not what this discussion is all about. It's about curricula, not what you can add on to them if nothing else can change. But then you go further and claim that enrichment is always better than acceleration. You can't say this.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Singapore math seems to cover the basics in a rigorous way and offer a good deal of problem-solving practice. It's a great curriculum, but there are still tons of opportunities for enrichment. Meaningful enrichment that will allow a student to be a better mathematician and a better thinker down the road."<BR/><BR/>Yes, more is better than less, but once again, we're not talking about more, we're talking about substitution. Besides, if all schools used Singapore Math, there would be no Math Wars. But what happens when the curriculum is worse, much worse? You seem to think that enrichment is still the best solution. Perhaps ONLY if there is nothing that can be done about the curriculum. (Again, this is not what the Math Wars is all about.) But I would still disagree with you. Acceleration can be better than enrichment, even with good curricula.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Now, granted, if all a school taught was shoe-tying in math class, then it would be hard to offer mathematical enrichment to kids with no mathematical skills. But that's a strawman as well."<BR/><BR/>You deliberately ignored what came after my comment about shoe-tying. That was the example about our school which is still trying to teach adds and subtracts to 20 in third grade. This is based on their assumption of no separation of students by ability and full-inclusion. To get this to work requires lower expectations. Spiral curricula facilitate this assumption by giving a pedagogical basis for delayed mastery. But mastery doesn't happen, and enrichment provides no guarantee of a fix. It's also no excuse for lack of acceleration.<BR/><BR/>In fact, many educators trash the idea of skill mastery as being "drill-and-kill". They even go so far as unlinking mastery from understanding. They see mastery as only adding speed. You may use the example of 60 problems in 3 minutes, but the problem of mastery in schools is absolutely, positively nowhere near that level. We're talking about kids in 5th grade who have to think about the solution of 7+8. We have kids in 6th and 7th grades who still don't know their times tables. This problem is not just about basic arithmetic. It continues with fractions, decimals, and percents. This lack of mastery all adds up. Schools will only enforce mastery to the level of trivial standardized tests. This is not enough. Affluent parents get to send their kids to Kumon or to private schools where "serious" students can thrive with (or in spite of) almost any curriculum. Poor and minority students get low expecations at home and at school.<BR/><BR/>The fallacy is that reform math is somehow better; that they teach more understanding; that they prepare students for the 21st century. They do no such things. Enrichment is no solution. They have to change their basic assumptions. The onus is not on others to prove that there is a better way. The onus is on the schools to explain why they can't offer a choice of curricula. National groups seem incapable of defining content and mastery expectations that lead to algebra in 8th grade, so the only option is choice. The goal is not about raising low cut-off points on standardized tests. It's about giving every individual equal access to to curricula and expectations that match their abilities.SteveHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03956560674752399562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-71256275638644368132007-09-21T10:20:00.000-04:002007-09-21T10:20:00.000-04:00I came across this interesting and semi-relevant b...I came across <A HREF="http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/unwrapping_the_gifted/2007/09/the_wheel_still_turns.html" REL="nofollow">this interesting and semi-relevant blog post</A> today about effecting change in schools. This particular article is about advocating for gifted kids, and the author has the advantage of being on staff at the school in question, but it still seems that there might be nuggets folks could take from that article and apply elsewhere.mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-72412375120733733052007-09-21T07:16:00.000-04:002007-09-21T07:16:00.000-04:00Mathmom--I knew you were more centrist like me, bu...Mathmom--<BR/>I knew you were more centrist like me, but, it's fair to say you and Steve are not exactly in the same place! I still think this ongoing dialog is publishable and perhaps should be required reading for all parents, teachers and board members everywhere!<BR/><BR/>Another thought -- why not a face-to-face on YouTube like the Point-CounterPoint segment from 60 Minutes...Dave Marainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321770881353644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-58448869820758789742007-09-20T21:56:00.000-04:002007-09-20T21:56:00.000-04:00Dave, let me assure you, I don't "represent" anyth...Dave, let me assure you, I don't "represent" anything other than my own unique opinions. (And anyhow, I thought I was somewhere in the middle ground, not really firmly on either "side".)<BR/><BR/>Steve and I seem, at this point, to be talking in circles. I don't think either of us will convince the other of much of anything new at this point. 'Tis probably indeed time to agree to disagree.<BR/><BR/>Let me know when you find that notebook. That Wiles guy's proof is a bit long, ya know?mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-86979110689493324502007-09-20T19:03:00.000-04:002007-09-20T19:03:00.000-04:00Math mom wrote: Barry questioned on what I based m...Math mom wrote: <I>Barry questioned on what I based my assumption that kid wouldn't want to sign up for after-school Singapore math programs. <BR/>I based it on the experiences of many parents of gifted kids I know who try to "after-school" their kids (with Singapore Math or anything else). Most people run into problems at the point when the school starts giving more than a few minutes per day of homework. At that point, most of the kids rebel against the additional school work. I'm impressed with the fact that you got so many kids in your community to take a voluntary after-school math class. <BR/><BR/>Your story about how the success of those kids influenced a larger-scale change of curriculum for the district (?) is an example of exactly the kind of thing I was talking about -- demonstrate the value of what you are asking for and you are more likely to get it. Congrats to all involved in that effort!<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>These were not gifted kids, however. They signed up because the principal of the school introduced it as a program. That's key. Someone high up in the school is advocating Singapore Math. Steve H and I can advocate for Singapore Math til we're blue in the face, and the best we can do is a response of "It's nice but too hard for our kids." There are not many principals like the one at Powell School, who are willing to take the chance she did. I had nothing to do with it. It was the principal who demonstrated the value of Singapore Math.<BR/><BR/>So far, it is only being implemented in Grades K-3 at the Powell School, thanks to Chancellor Rhee. No other school is using it. I am hoping that the Chancellor will agree to have Singapore Math used at other schools in DC.<BR/><BR/>Demonstrating the value of something is no guarantee, however. Politics plays a larger role. I am hopeful that the DC school politics are favorable to Singapore Math. They were not favorable to it in Montgomery County, MD where it was piloted in 4 schools from 2000 to 2003. Despite evidence of success, it was dropped. Everyday Math is now used in Montgomery County, MD. For more information on that, see:<BR/>http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3853357.htmlBarry Garelickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01281266848110087415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-79010343190720536612007-09-20T18:11:00.000-04:002007-09-20T18:11:00.000-04:00Mathmom, Steve--I had been thinking of setting up ...Mathmom, Steve--<BR/>I had been thinking of setting up an online interview between two articulate representatives of opposing forces in the Math Wars. Thank you for doing this for me. I believe you can respectfully agree to disagree. I would like to invite others to join in, but truthfully this debate is far too important and powerful to reside in a set of comments. I did have a set of 19 questions I would have liked to ask each of you, but, unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced them. I believe they are in the margins of one of my notebooks along with my proof of Fermat's theorem...<BR/><BR/>Seriously, I admire your tenacity and sense of purpose. Steve, you may not believe that I too have been extraordinarily frustrated with educational bureaucracies. Like you and Mathmom, I don't give up. I see merit in both of your positions even though you say there is no middle ground. I have been committed to providing enrichment for all of my students for all my years in the classroom. The curriculum, the textbook, the ancillaries never ever went far enough to develop student understanding. If you've read the investigations I've developed for the past 9 months, I'd like you to tell me in what math program you can find them, Singapore included. There is so much depth to plumb here. BTW, these investigation require strong skills. I don't believe I could ever convince you of any of this...Dave Marainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321770881353644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-79414309837771912082007-09-20T17:44:00.000-04:002007-09-20T17:44:00.000-04:00Steve, indeed you and I are using "acceleration" t...Steve, indeed you and I are using "acceleration" to use different things. <BR/><BR/>The definition I am using (which corresponds to the one used in literature about teaching gifted students) is allowing students who are ready for a higher grade level to move to it at a younger age. This can include things like "grade skipping", "compaction" (doing 2 grades worth of material in one year), or "subject acceleration" (doing a higher grade level material in a given subject), which is what I'm talking about here. With subject acceleration, if you're in an Everyday Math school and you get subject acceleration in math, you would do 4th grade (or 5th grade or 6th grade) Everyday Math instead of 3rd grade Everyday Math. <BR/><BR/>You seem to be using "acceleration" to mean "substituting a whole different curriculum". I haven't seen it used that way in the literature, so perhaps that's why we're talking past one another.<BR/><BR/>You seem to think that the sun rises and sets with Singapore Math, and it's so "complete" that gifted kids in Singapore Math would never need (or benefit from ?) further enrichment. I disagree. Singapore math seems to cover the basics in a rigorous way and offer a good deal of problem-solving practice. It's a great curriculum, but there are still tons of opportunities for enrichment. Meaningful enrichment that will allow a student to be a better mathematician and a better thinker down the road. <BR/><BR/>A curriculum, even a good one, prescribes what everyone must learn. Enrichment allows capable students to learn <I><B>more</B></I>. You asked why, if the topics are so "important" they are not included in the curriculum to start with. The answer is that the curriculum is developed for "everyone" not for gifted learners. Enrichment, effectively, adds additional topics to the "gifted curriculum". Many things can be beneficial for gifted learners to learn even if not everyone can or must learn them.<BR/><BR/>Now, granted, if all a school taught was shoe-tying in math class, then it would be hard to offer mathematical enrichment to kids with no mathematical skills. But that's a strawman as well.<BR/><BR/>As to whether changing things in the way the DC group changed things is an OK process, sometimes when you can't walk into a building through the front door, you may find the back door more accessible. I've said earlier in this discussion that in an ideal world, parents shouldn't have to do things like this, but in the real world, you do what you have to do.mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-85522628708888380722007-09-20T14:02:00.000-04:002007-09-20T14:02:00.000-04:00"Yes, actually, I am saying lthat no acceleration ..."Yes, actually, I am saying lthat no acceleration is fine. If enrichment is good, I think it's not only an acceptable way to differentiate, but an excellent way."<BR/><BR/>For any low standardized grade-level expectations? What if the school is just teaching kids to tie their shoes in third grade? Silly? OK, what about my example of still teaching kids their adds and subtracts to 20 in third grade? Perhaps you assume that any content and skills level a school chooses is fine, but the relationship between grade-level expectations and the value of enrichment is not arbitrary. Enrichment (assuming that it's good) will always help at any level, but it's not a substitute for low grade-level expectations. Acceleration can mean just allowing kids to progress to the level of Singapore Math.<BR/><BR/>Also, enrichment, by definition, implies extra, or add-on. It shouldn't be necessary if the curriculum is good to begin with. Enrichment isn't necessary for Singapore Math. It may be nice, but it isn't necessary. You can't divide math into boring drill and kill and enrichment. There is a whole lot in-between the two.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Acceleration of material does not offer the kids "more", it offers them "the same, but sooner". Enrichment actually offers them "more" -- material they wouldn't otherwise cover at all."<BR/><BR/>Acceleration is not more, but the same, sooner? If this material is so important, then it would be part of the curriculum, not enrichment.<BR/><BR/>I guess you have a funny definition of "more".<BR/><BR/>Enrichment is extra. Acceleration means allowing kids to progress at a faster pace through the material. Math curricula like Singapore Math is not a series of "the same, but sooner". Math is not built around enrichment. You can't redefine "extra" to mean "necessary". If you contort definitions, you can justify almost anything. If, however, a school offers (at least the choice of) a curriculum like Singapore Math, then one could argue against acceleration, but only from a practical or scheduling standpoint, not a pedagogical one.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Perhaps you and I are not using the word "acceleration" in the same way? What I have seen labeled as "subject acceleration" is allowing students who have completed the curriculum for 3rd grade to move on and work on the curriculum for 4th grade."<BR/><BR/>And you call this "the same, but sooner", as if there is a whole lot more to math than what's in a math curriculum? Isn't a curriculum supposed to contain everything that's necessary? How can moving faster through a curriculum not be "more"? Are you just talking about "bad" curricula?<BR/><BR/><BR/>" ...so most places offer this as a cheap way to write off the needs of the gifted kids."<BR/><BR/>Strawman. I'm not talking about any such thing. Besides, many places use enrichment as a way to write off the faster pace needs of talented kids. And many G/T programs are about appeasing one group while not fixing the underlying problems for the rest.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"The most important feature of a good differentiation plan for gifted learners is grouping them together, so that they can be taught at a faster pace and they don't always have to sit around waiting for the average and below average kids to get it, whatever 'it' is."<BR/><BR/>I'm all for homogeneous grouping, but as I've said over and over this is anathema to most schools. It's an assumption. They will never do it, and no amount of after school volunteering will change it. But I don't understand you. Homogeneous ability grouping and a faster pace is NOT acceleration? Faster pace of what? The curriculum? Enrichment? If you separate kids by ability and if you use a good curriculum, like Singapore Math, then what's the big deal about enrichment? Acceleration becomes less of an issue ONLY for schools that provide multiple curricula, because the acceleration is built in. Of course, acceleration is not going to help a curriculum like the old MathLand or TERC. Faster-paced crap is still crap. But that's not what I'm talking about. Maybe you are. Even if you have a good curriculum, students can still benefit from acceleration or deceleration of the material, but this can only be reasonably done up to a certain point in one classroom. Enrichment is just extra, unless you're talking about a bad curriculum.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"There is no particular reason that gifted learners absolutely must be taught multiplication or fractions as soon as they master addition and subtraction in order to offer them an appropriate level of challenge."<BR/><BR/>This is another strawman, and a separate issue. I didn't say anything of the sort. Lots of methods can work, but it also depends on where you are going and what performance levels you expect, at least for some point in time. You can define your own expectations (perhaps with good reason), but there are certain key points where externally-defined tests need to be taken. The big ones are the SSAT, the SAT, and the AP Calculus tests. The other required expectation is a path to algebra in 8th grade that eveyone can manage to follow, NOT just gifted students. The solution is not just separating students by ability. The solution is to provide good math curricula and high expecations for all kids. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"Most people run into problems at the point when the school starts giving more than a few minutes per day of homework. At that point, most of the kids rebel against the additional school work."<BR/><BR/>That's because of the stupidity of doing double math work; because of the stupidity of not allowing Singapore Math as a choice during the day, not just after school.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Your story about how the success of those kids influenced a larger-scale change of curriculum for the district (?) is an example of exactly the kind of thing I was talking about -- demonstrate the value of what you are asking for and you are more likely to get it."<BR/><BR/>This process is OK? This validates your smug position? Do all this work and hope that you can change minds? This is our fundamental disagreement. This process should not be necessary. All there needs to be is enough parental demand and a school with reasonable resources to meet that demand. We're not talking about teaching Creationism. We're talking about math. We're talking about years of opinion-based math and your position that the onus is on the parents to prove that something else is better. On top of it all, this process may not work. In fact, my son's school likes Singapore Math (in a general sense), but they think it's too challenging for most kids, especially in a mixed-ability classroom. Case closed. <BR/><BR/>Proof is not always enough. Their assumptions and no choice rule.SteveHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03956560674752399562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-82133798970728466952007-09-20T10:15:00.000-04:002007-09-20T10:15:00.000-04:00Steve wrote:Are you saying that no acceleration is...Steve wrote:<BR/><I>Are you saying that no acceleration is fine? Enrichment can be good or it can be bad, but it can't be the only way to differentiate.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, actually, I <I>am</I> saying lthat <B>no acceleration is fine</B>. If enrichment is good, I think it's not only an acceptable way to differentiate, but an excellent way.<BR/><BR/>Acceleration of material does not offer the kids "more", it offers them "the same, but sooner". Enrichment actually offers them "more" -- material they wouldn't otherwise cover at all.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you and I are not using the word "acceleration" in the same way? What I have seen labeled as "subject acceleration" is allowing students who have completed the curriculum for 3rd grade to move on and work on the curriculum for 4th grade. The way I have seen this implemented most is by letting a couple of younger kids who are ready for 4th grade material go to a 4th grade classroom during math time. This generally doesn't cost the school anything, so most places offer this as a cheap way to write off the needs of the gifted kids. This is better than nothing, but by no means a great solution for gifted kids. You are offering the kids a some new content, but placing them in a class whose pace and teaching style are still aimed at average learners. It's still going to be too slow and too shallow for gifted learners. <BR/><BR/>The most important feature of a good differentiation plan for gifted learners is grouping them together, so that they can be taught at a faster pace and they don't always have to sit around waiting for the average and below average kids to get it, whatever "it" is. <BR/><BR/>A good math enrichment program is possible at all levels, even with kids who have only learned addition and subtraction. (And even with kids who haven't learned even that!) There is no particular reason that gifted learners absolutely must be taught multiplication or fractions as soon as they master addition and subtraction in order to offer them an appropriate level of challenge.<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/>Barry questioned on what I based my assumption that kid wouldn't want to sign up for after-school Singapore math programs. <BR/><BR/>I based it on the experiences of many parents of gifted kids I know who try to "after-school" their kids (with Singapore Math or anything else). Most people run into problems at the point when the school starts giving more than a few minutes per day of homework. At that point, most of the kids rebel against the additional school work.<BR/><BR/>I'm impressed with the fact that you got so many kids in your community to take a voluntary after-school math class. <BR/><BR/>Your story about how the success of those kids influenced a larger-scale change of curriculum for the district (?) is an example of exactly the kind of thing I was talking about -- demonstrate the value of what you are asking for and you are more likely to get it. Congrats to all involved in that effort!mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-18875916700523942132007-09-20T09:12:00.000-04:002007-09-20T09:12:00.000-04:00I think you'd get few students to sign up for afte...<I>I think you'd get few students to sign up for after-school Singapore Math, never mind what the school would think.</I><BR/><BR/>And you base this on what? Oh, excuse me, I entered a post a while ago about textbooks and parents' experience with their math programs. Thought I'd enter my two cents again, and really don't mind being ignored. Regarding after school programs, the Powell Elementary School in Washington DC started an after school Singapore Math program that was strictly voluntary. They got a pretty good crew of kids staying after, even up to the last week of school. The principal of the school talked to the new Chancellor of Education in DC (Michelle Rhee) about the success of the after school Singapore Math program, and Rhee agreed to have it be the official program in K-3 at that school starting this year. (FYI, DC Public Schools adopted Everyday Math in 2005. For more about that, see:<BR/>http://www.thirdeducationgroup.org/Review/Essays/v2n6.htm )<BR/><BR/>Besides the approach used in Singapore Math, and its effectiveness, the principal of Powell School also liked the simplicity of the language used in the books. In a school in which 90% of the school population are English Language Learners, the book has been very accessible. This is not surprising given that in Singapore, three languages are spoken there, but in public schools, all classes are conducted in English. Thus, the books are constructed with English Language Learners in mind.Barry Garelickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01281266848110087415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-47461016953832362162007-09-19T23:11:00.000-04:002007-09-19T23:11:00.000-04:00"You and I have a substantial difference of opinio..."You and I have a substantial difference of opinion if you think acceleration is the only or even best answer for gifted learners."<BR/><BR/>I said neither, but many schools don't offer acceleration at all, by definition. It's not an option. Are you saying that no acceleration is fine? Enrichment can be good or it can be bad, but it can't be the only way to differentiate.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Lack of acceleration is not the same as low expectations."<BR/><BR/>For most kids, it is. Enrichment cannot make up for a lack of acceleration.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"I'm surprised that you wouldn't be happy to have gifted learners be taught more, be taught stuff outside and in addition to that basic, minimal set of standards."<BR/><BR/>Once again, I didn't say that. The "more" I expect is based on acceleration of material, NOT enrichment. Enrichment is no substitute for acceleration, ESPECIALLY with minimal state standards. Our school is still trying to get kids to master their adds and subtracts to 20 at the beginning of third grade. What possible enrichment could you give the more able kids to make it OK not to move on to new material?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"When I did this in the public school, I found teachers who were dying to give the top students more challenge, but frequently had trouble making the time to do it."<BR/><BR/>You're still talking about something else. You're talking about dealing with a situation, rather than trying to fix the underlying problem. These are two separate issues.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"... and at some point someone might indeed wonder why certain kids are suddenly doing better in math..."<BR/><BR/>This is not a proper process for change. Besides, schools get plenty of kids who pass through Kumon and the schools don't know or care. Many parents help their kids at home and the school doesn't know or care. They're just happy that these kids make their scores look good. All of my posts have nothing to do with figuring out how to play the system. They are about fixing the underlying problem.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Because if what you're doing really makes a difference, it will show. And that kind of "evidence" can change minds. Also, as the old saying goes, 'you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.'" <BR/><BR/>So, I'm not allowed to challenge the system directly? Do you think that I haven't already done a whole lot of working within the system. This doesn't work for basic assumptions. Parents shouldn't have to play this game. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"When you volunteer your time and effort to help teachers and schools, they get to know you better, get to trust you more, and may take your opinions, suggestions, requests and advice just that much more seriously."<BR/><BR/>Do I have to spell it out for you? I've done these things. I've gotten along great with my son's teachers and principals. I've had long discussions with them, including those who were in charge of the math curriculum. We might as well be on different planets. I may have changed their thinking a little bit, but they still use Everyday Math. <BR/><BR/>This process for change is not acceptable.<BR/><BR/>The solution is not to change the subject and talk about how to best work within the system. I know all of that.<BR/><BR/>When I talk about fundamental changes like curriculum choice, you talk about being an education helper.SteveHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03956560674752399562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8231784566931768362.post-58453495009476683982007-09-19T20:22:00.000-04:002007-09-19T20:22:00.000-04:00I think you have a different idea of ability group...<I>I think you have a different idea of ability grouping. I see lots of "ability grouping" in our differentiated instruction classrooms. But once again, details and definitions matter. Much of the ability grouping is on a horizontal or enrichment basis, and not a vertical, or acceleration basis. Lack of acceleration and low expectations is a major issue.</I><BR/><BR/>You and I have a substantial difference of opinion if you think acceleration is the only or even best answer for gifted learners. <BR/><BR/>Take a look at <A HREF="http://mathmomblog.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/gifted-math-education-acceleration-enrichment-and-the-calculus-trap/" REL="nofollow">my blog</A> for more about my take on acceleration versus enrichment for gifted learners. <BR/><BR/>Lack of acceleration is <B>not</B> the same as low expectations. Since you and I agree that the current standards represent "low expectations" particularly as compared to the abilities of gifted learners, I'm surprised that you wouldn't be happy to have gifted learners be taught <B>more</B>, be taught stuff <I>outside</I> and <I> in addition to</I> that basic, minimal set of standards. <BR/><BR/><I>They are not changed by providing after-school enrichment.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, for starters, I am talking about in-school, rather than after-school enrichment. I believe that all students have a right to appropriate math education in math class, not only after school. And, if the enrichment is good, then they will be challenged by it. <BR/><BR/><I>How do you think a school would react to after-school sessions of the Singapore Math curriculum? You're basically telling them that the curriculum they use is wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you'd get few students to sign up for after-school Singapore Math, never mind what the school would think. But if, for example, you volunteered to take the top kids out of the class and do some extra problem solving with them while they helped the struggling kids master the basic curriculum, most schools would take you up on that. If you took those "extra" problems out of, say, a resource you "happened to" already have like, say Singapore Math, I doubt the school would complain. If you found that the students lacked the mastery of basic skills required to complete the problems, then you would naturally work on those skills with them as well. And mention it to the teacher when you handed the kids back. When I volunteered to not only take the kids but do all the work of preparing the "lessons" I found no difficulty getting takers. When I did this in the public school, I found teachers who were dying to give the top students more challenge, but frequently had trouble making the time to do it. They were thrilled for me to come in and help in that way.<BR/><BR/>If you really want to offer after-school Singapore Math, and you have the demand for it, use a room at the library, or in your house, or anywhere else. It will be harder to prove to the school that what you are doing matters to these kids, but you'll still be helping the kids, and at some point someone might indeed wonder why certain kids are suddenly doing better in math...<BR/><BR/><I>You're talking about being helpers for the teachers, not changing fundamental assumptions. </I><BR/><BR/>I'm talking about taking one step at a time. First, by being a helper for the teacher. And slowly changing fundamental assumptions by the results of the help you provide. Because if what you're doing really makes a difference, it will show. And that kind of "evidence" can change minds. Also, as the old saying goes, "you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." When you volunteer your time and effort to help teachers and schools, they get to know you better, get to trust you more, and may take your opinions, suggestions, requests and advice just that much more seriously.<BR/><BR/>I can tell you for certain that I have changed the mind of the principal and middle school math teacher of our current school about things like <A HREF="http://mathmomblog.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/calculator-rant/" REL="nofollow">calculator use</A>, and the value of contest math (for all students, not just the gifted ones). She could see the benefits of the things I was doing with the kids, and began to trust my opinion, and trust the evidence before her eyes.mathmomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869925405540832241noreply@blogger.com