|
District
response to August22, 2006 Citizen Comments
|
Teach
Our Kids! Analysis
|
|
Dear
Mr. Martin,
The text of your comments to the Plymouth-Canton School Board
was forwarded to me for comment. I appreciate that you have
taken the time to think about our math program and the struggles
we will face as we address the multiple challenges in math education.
Those
challenges include the following issues:
|
|
| 1. The
standards for math proficiency have increased sharply (amid much
disagreement in the math education community). For example, in
the new High School Course Content Expectations for the new Algebra
1, we find many concepts formerly taught in Algebra 2. More math
is required in each grade, K- 8, than ever before. This math includes
the traditional arithmetic topics as well as topics from geometry,
probability, data analysis and algebra. All of these are essential
to us, and all are represented on the MEAP. Learning basic math
facts is still necessary, but is not at all sufficient. There
are no "naked" math problems on the MEAP. |
Michigan has finally
raised the bar in math. Algebra II will be a graduation requirement
for ALL students (9th graders for the 2007-2008 school year).
The ACT will be the measure of high school math proficiency.
Unfortunately, the
MEAP has fallen prey to the same forces that generated Everyday
Mathematics. The released items from 2005 clearly demonstrate
that Michigan does not expect students to be able to do math.
Click here for
two sample questions. These types of questions are sprinkled
throughout Everyday Mathematics. Students spend as much time
WRITING about math as practicing math.
Students are not
expected to be able to do the computations, so 'alternate assessments'
such as writing about math are made available.
Getting all A's and
scoring highly on the MEAP does not mean your child will be
prepared for the real world.
Compare the MEAP
to California standards.
California has EXIT standards for each grade. Since the MEAP
is given in early October, the 4th grade MEAP tests 3rd grade
knowledge. Compare California 3rd grade to Michigan 4th grade;
California 4th grade to Michigan 5th grade and so on.
MEAP
released items
California
released items
California aligned
their requirements to those of Singapore and Japan; nations
that routinely score among the best in the world. Everyday Mathematics
is not an approved text in California. It does not meet their
standards. Your child will be competing for jobs against these
kids.
Why give them less
than the best?
|
| 2. At
the same time that the Michigan standards have been raised, our
NCLB mandate from the federal government is to have 99% of our
total school population demonstrate proficiency on these standards,
as measured by the MEAP's in grades 3 -8, and on the Michigan
Merit Exam, by the year 2014. |
States must show
proficiency. Each state gets to grade themselves. Some states
have chosen to have high standards at the sacrifice of high
proficiency. States like Michigan have chosen to make the standards
relatively easy, making it easier to show proficiency. The Michigan
standards should be considered the MINIMUM requirement for our
children. Following these MINIMUM standards will result in MINIMUM
proficiency relative to the rest of the world.
We should choose to aim for world-class standards instead. World-class
should be the standard of P-CCS, not mediocrity.
Meanwhile, the number
of U.S.-trained scientists and engineers declines compared with
the increasing numbers of those trained in Asian countries.
|
| 3. The
funding available to schools for instruction has actually decreased
over the past few years. Without increased funds, it will be difficult
to provide additional time in which to assist any struggling students,
without some loss in another content area. |
Everyday
Mathematics requires MORE teacher training than most other programs.
Everyday Mathematics requires consumable workbooks. Everyday Mathematics
requires parent training.
Other programs are more efficient than Everyday Mathematics. They
teach more content in less time. |
| Fortunately
for us. in the Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, we have several
factors helping us. We attribute our current excellent performance
on the MEAP's (see data below) to all three of these factors. |
P-CCS is above average
because of these factors, not because of Everyday Mathematics.
Why continue to struggle
for mediocrity, when excellence is available?
|
| One, we
have excellent teachers who have participated in numerous hours
of training and preparation to teach math. |
Excellent teachers.
Absolutely!
They have to compensate
for Everyday Mathematics.
|
| Two, we
have strong families, who communicate their support for education
to their children and their communities. For example, "Math
Facts" are practiced in class in a variety of ways. The need
for additional practice varies from child to child. We appreciate
that parents help to provide additional practice on math facts. |
Strong families.
Absolutely!
Most students need
help at home to compensate for EM shortcomings. Children without
the strong family support will have an extremely difficult time
achieving mastery of the subject.
EM uses games to
reinforce math facts. These games quickly become play for students.
The wished for connections are rarely made. The Pittsburgh
Teachers Institute has many papers written by teachers who
have many years experience with Everyday Mathematics. They mostly
conclude that EM may be a good supplemental program, but not
the core program.
|
| Three,
we have a research-based, coherent, comprehensive math program
in grades K- 8, that addresses the full range of math topics required. |
Research-based? OK.
Evidence-based? A
resounding NO!
Coherent? 5 different
topics on one worksheet? Never-ending spirals? "Don't worry.
You don't need to understand that now. We'll come back to it
again in a few months."
Addresses all the
topics? Without mastery of any.
Check out the What
Works Clearinghouse for
its review of Everyday Mathematics. Of the 61 studies performed
by proponents of EM, four met WWC standards for experimental
design.
Only one of those four studies was described as statistically
showing "potentially positive effects". That particular
researcher has not released his data for independent analysisand
the study has been harshly criticised by other math experts
as having serious methodological flaws.
Meanwhile, the largest
education research project ever, "Project
Follow Through" showed absolute, positive results for
teacher-centered instruction methods vs. any child-centered
method. Saxon Math is an example of a teached-centered method.
EM falls solidly in the child-centered category.
|
| Another
strength of the Plymouth-Canton Community Schools is the willingness
of teachers to work with each other to address issues. We agree
that we need to exceed Everyday Math in relation to division.
We will have a committee working on the division issue this year
for implementation this year. |
P-CCS is above average
because of the extra work, not because of Everyday Mathematics.
Why continue to struggle
for mediocrity, when excellence is available?
|
| On the
topic of the lowa Test of Basic Skills: We changed to a different
version of the lowa Tests this year, in an attempt to save district
money and student time. We saw that some scores on the new test
were lower. We looked at the scores and found that on this new
test we teach some skills after the test. We will monitor this
over time and respond as we need to. |
One more example
of how we are not preparing students for the real world.
If we are not teaching
skills at the same pace or greater than the rest of the nation
(let alone the world), our children loose.
Why aim for less
than excellence?
|
| Just one
more note on testing: As I compared the scores of PCCS to the
state on each of the items on all the math tests, grades 3 -8,
1 noticed an interesting pattern. On the highscoring items, we
always did as well as or a few points better than the state scores,
which I would expect. But on the more challenging items (ones
on which the state scores were 40% - 70 %), we almost always scored
between 5 -18 points higher. My hypothesis is that since our students
had experience confronting unfamiliar problems, and confidence
in attempting them, they were willing to take the time to try
these harder test problems. I think this is a direct result of
our challenging, problem-based math programs. This kind of success
is extremely difficult to replicate with a more traditional, drill
on skill program. |
Traditional
'drill & kill' programs as our parents were taught don't exist
anymore. Modern teacher-led instructional programs perform better
than Everyday Mathematics in the basics and in problem
solving.
Students gain confidence by knowing they have mastered the subject.
Mastery does not come from dabbling in multiple algorithms. |
Sincerely,
Janet Kahan.
CC: B. Rodenberg, J. Ryan, Board of Education |
|
| |
|