Sounds pretty innocuous and straightforward, right? Not necessarily. Since the April 17 elections, the way in which math and language arts are being taught in the Bridgewater-Raritan School District may have become a contentious issue. Three candidates waged a forceful campaign of reform to “ensure rigorous curriculum evaluations,” and to “raise the bar for all children.” Two are now sitting on the board, and the public needs to know what their plans are.
Since specific information about Tuesday’s recommendation was not available for this writing, some of the items to look for are:
- Has the Curriculum Committee given the board an unambiguous recommendation? Is there a minority report?
- To what extent have teachers and program professionals participated in the recommendation, and have their views been considered?
- Will all nine board members show up for a potential vote? The community needs to understand each person’s position.
- If a recommendation is made to purchase updated textbooks for the Everyday Math program, will the board go along, or will it be rejected? Why?
The last point is a critical one, because not to provide students with the latest educational materials will be considered by many as a move to weaken the existing program, prior to striking it a final blow.
If the current Everyday Math curriculum is insufficient for the education of Bridgewater and Raritan students, proponents of change need to explain precisely what will replace it, why and when, as well as the socio-economic cost to our two communities.
2 comments:
People have different opinions about Everyday Math, but no one can deny that it's controversial. Math professors strongly criticize it. You can read the criticism by copying and pasting on this link.
http://www.nychold.com/em.html
I think the burden is on the administration to justify the continued use of this program in light of all the controversies. The administration needs to address the issues in a serious way. The Everyday Math Committee was comprised only of school personnel, all or most of whom, presumably, support the program. Critics were excluded.
There are many other fine programs out there that our administration could consider. How about Singapore Math or Saxon Math? Our administration should at least pilot an alternative program for those kids who are struggling with Everyday Math. It should also address the concerns raised by mathematicians.
My overall comment on the Everyday Math committee's report is that not one instance of the philosophy of
Everyday Math was addressed. Parents raised specific concerns about
the implausibility of the spiral approach, the hodge-podge of topics
and their similarly hodge-podge presentation, and the all-too-
numerous strands introduced that comply with the old NCTM standards.
The committee was not even instructed to address these concerns
although there were numerous complaints about them. The overall
recommendation says nothing newer than a new grading system will be
introduced - though no information was given on how it will be
improved over the last grading system. The recommendation also says
that there is a handbook on differentiation, but parents have always
consistently been told that there has always been a policy of
differentiation and supplementation - so this is (a) nothing new and
(b) never been in great evidence anyway according to parents.
Parents have already been given family letters, Everyday Math games.
It has been clear to me that the parents who were vocal about their
dissatisfaction with Everyday Math had no trouble understanding
Everyday Math, they had trouble with its lack of effectiveness and
rigor. More parental explanation does nothing to address the
parents' concerns with Everyday Math curriculum.
The recommendation for the needs of special ed students is
practically a non-entity. Haven't teachers always had access to
materials below grade level? Isn't it a natural course of teaching
to activate students' prior knowledge, assess the students'
abilities. If this is something new then I am even more concerned
about the current teaching practices in our district. Again, the
specific philosophy of spiraling, hodge-podge topic presentation and
over-numerous strands was ignored although specific concerns were
raised by parents about Everyday Math philosophy with special mention
of children with learning disabilities.
As for the more advanced learners: Is it a new practice that
teachers will have access to resource materials above grade level?
Have they been denied this in the past? Don't teachers always pre-
assess their students? Haven't teachers always given enrichment
materials to students who have already mastered the material? Again,
the Everyday Math philosophy was remarked on specifically and
negatively by parents as regards advanced learners. The committee is
simply having the teachers continue the practices that have already
(ostensibly) been in place.
The third point is perhaps the most maddening. Nowhere does the
report say that they will TEACH mastery. They say they will have
expectations, they say they will do timed tests, they say the
children will be assigned fact drill homework. They never say they
will teach it. My son brings home a Homework Hero every week from
his teachers. Every week without change, it states that he should
continue to practice his addition and subtraction facts. I am always
tempted to send the paper back with the addition, "because it will
not happen in class". The parents who voiced their concerns were
specific about the fact that basic drill to mastery was not happening
in the schools. This letter does nothing to address those concerns.
In fact, it clearly states that the children will be responsible for
learning this at home and then will be tested on it in school.
Provisions for mastery of traditional math algorithms: No mention is
made of reducing the number of algorithms that are introduced
although parents specifically questioned the Everyday Math philosophy
of introducing multiple methods and making the children responsible
for all of them. Parents want their children taught the traditional
algorithms as the focus method and if for whatever reason a child
would benefit from learning another method only then would it make
sense to introduce it to him or her. Specific mention was made by a
parent that it would simply take her daughter too long to complete
the Math SAT if she had to draw out the lattice method every time she
needed to multiply multiple digits.
Homework: The concerns parents raised were that the homework was
minimal and simplistic. Being directed to a website for further
homework supplementation is entirely uninspired and in no way a
solution to a bad curriculum choice.
Teacher training: Weren't we supposed hire trained teachers? They
do have a degree in education, right? Some of them even have a
masters degree which they are paid extra for. Now, because of the
experiment being conducted on our children we have to pay for even
more training? A more traditional math program would not require
such an expense and self-serving exercise.
Parent information sessions: This amounts to yet another expense. A
more traditional program would render this consideration
unnecessary. Parents would be able to help their children and
understand their homework. Instead the district wants to sink even
more money into this program to try to sell it to the parents who
have already asked that it be removed. And this when we can't even
afford to keep the library assistants.
Assessment is a huge issue. So huge, evidently, that the committee
had to punt. How DO you assess a student's progress with a program
that repeatedly states throughout the spiral that it is OK if the
student doesn't understand yet because he will see the material
again, briefly, in few months. Maybe he'll get it then, maybe not
and that's OK too, because it will be introduced briefly again the
next year.
None of the parents who raised concerns wanted to keep Everyday
Math. Despite this, the Everyday Math Curriculum Committee was
charged to keep it. None of the strategies they put forward are
new, nor do they address the concerns by the parents, nor do they
offer any strategy toward improvement in math education. Instead,
every effort has been made to "stay the course." I can only implore
you to begin to listen to the concerns of the parents in your
district and begin to implement a math program that is not an
experiment in math appreciation, but a more rigorous math education
that will prepare our children for the more rigorous math to come in
the upper grades and college years.
Post a Comment