Why are so many people in Georgia mad about math?
Of all the curriculum debates, the ongoing sparring over Georgia’s new math standards is the most vigorous. A while back, I ran two related articles on Monday AJC education pages. I am rerunning them here in response to the comments Wednesday about the math standards. Warning, these are long essays so they may only interest those concerned about math.
The first is from parent Kim Learnard and the second is from Laurence Peterson, dean of the College of Science and Mathematics at Kennesaw State University, and Arlinda Eaton, dean of the KSU College of Education.
Kim Learnard said:
The long-awaited 2008 SAT scores and national rankings have been released. Six years after state schools Superintendent Kathy Cox took the helm, Georgia students have advanced from 47th in the nation to — drumroll, please — 47th in the nation. And Georgia students scored 22 points lower than the national average in math. Clearly, it is time for a change.
But going from bad to worse isn’t the answer. Three years ago, Georgia implemented a new math curriculum that has no track record of success — anywhere. It is based on group discussion.
That’s right, we’re all going to sit around and watch while adolescents learn key math concepts by discussing them in peer groups. Speaking as an electrical engineer who has practiced her profession for 25 years, I am sickened.
We now have students sitting in groups twiddling their thumbs waiting for one of their peers to teach them math. We have teachers expressing frustration to parents that they would like to teach the material but they are “not allowed to.” We have precious class time thoroughly wasted.
One of the first things I learned in my master’s degree in education curriculum at the University of Georgia is the stark difference between adult and child learners. Adults are more self-directed; they learn better when they have an immediate real-world problem to solve or a task at hand; they have a rich reservoir of life experiences from which to make meaning of new ideas. None of these concepts applies to children.
Yet Georgia’s new math program is based on the premise that adolescents seated in groups will self-motivate in order to discover and critically examine key math concepts, their applications, their differentiations and their meanings in the real world. This is preposterous.
Math proficiency comes from the ability to individually solve problems to get correct answers.
Remember textbooks? Math textbooks provide a vehicle for the student to review technical concepts and methods for solving problems. Math textbooks provide answers in the back so a student can make sure they worked problems correctly. Georgia’s new math curriculum has no textbooks. There is no vehicle for parents to review methodology and reinforce methods and concepts at home. There are no answers listed so students can assure themselves they worked a problem correctly.
Georgia’s new math curriculum is designed to reduce the number of participants in the accelerated classes. Fayette County’s participation rate in eighth-grade accelerated math dropped by 82 percent in the last year. These are students who did very well in sixth- and seventh-grade accelerated math classes and scored high on the CRCT.
The math coordinator has stated that unless a child eat, sleeps and breathes math, they should not be in the accelerated class. In fact, adolescence is a time of exploration and multi-tasking. The idea that an adolescent would eat, sleep and breathe any single topic has no basis in fact. Never in my life have I witnessed such a massive effort to discourage students from learning and loving math.
It’s great that we have decided to adopt what we think is a rigorous curriculum. But having a rigorous curriculum, in and of itself, is meaningless. What we’re supposed to be doing — is this news to Kathy Cox? — is teaching our students to the extent that they can meet the challenges of a rigorous curriculum. To do any less is to sell them short. And that is what we are doing every day we hang onto this pie-in-the-sky, untried, unproven, experimental, nontechnical conversational math curriculum.
It’s time for a change. It’s time we implement a math program that gets back to the basics; that empowers eager learners to explore the technical, satisfyingly irrefutable nature of math in its purest form; and that has a proven track record of success, perhaps in another state. After all, we have 46 from which to choose.
Drs. Peterson and Eaton responded:
We read with interest and concern the guest column by Kimberly Learnard, “Let’s discuss how bogus new math coursework is”
Georgia’s low SAT scores are precisely the reason the 22-year-old Quality Core Curriculum in mathematics was replaced. The QCC was based upon the philosophy of including as many topics as possible, without recognizing that our students would have very little subject depth in contrast to the results produced from the best international programs. The disappointing SAT scores reported recently were from 2008 graduates who learned their mathematics under the old curriculum, not the new Georgia Performance Standards.
The claim that the Georgia Performance Standards were adopted with no proof of success is incorrect. The GPS were developed after extensive study of curricula by a panel of 15 leaders in education, government, business and industry across Georgia. The panel recommended the leanness, rigor and coherence of both Japan’s and North Carolina’s curriculum. Japanese students consistently score near the top in any international comparisons.
North Carolina is an excellent benchmark because of demographic similarities and consistent improvements in their students’ mathematics SAT scores that now approach the national average.
A team of Georgia’s most respected teachers used these sources to write the initial version of the Georgia Performance Standards. The Georgia Department of Education then assembled a team of teachers and administrators to work with university mathematicians and mathematics educators across Georgia, including Kennesaw State University, Georgia Tech and the University of Georgia, to review and finalize the curriculum. The curriculum was made public for review for 60 days in 2004, revised further and posted for public review for 60 additional days before final approval in May 2005.
The resulting mathematics curriculum has been endorsed by the Georgia Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Georgia Regents Academic Advisory Committee on Mathematical Subjects.
At the national level, the Georgia performance standards are consistent with the guidelines of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the College Board, the American Statistical Association and the American Diploma Project, a coalition of 33 states dedicated to aligning standards, graduation requirements, assessments and accountability policies.
Learnard states that teachers have expressed “frustration to parents that they would like to teach the material but they are ‘not allowed to’.” We wonder if these teachers were able to participate in the many statewide professional development workshops designed to assist teachers in implementing the new standards. A typical classroom day using the new, more rigorous curriculum would involve the teacher presenting a mathematical task to students, questioning them to think about the mathematical concepts and subsequently encouraging them to explore options for solving the problem.
Communication of their mathematical ideas not only helps students solve problems but prepares them for working in a global economy where quantitative skills are more important than ever before. Thomas Friedman, in his book “The World Is Flat, ” says that the ability to understand, problem-solve and communicate effectively about quantitative topics will be among the most marketable skills in the future and be important factors in maintaining our global competitiveness.
Learnard also decries the lack of a textbook for the new curriculum. She states that “Georgia’s new math curriculum has no textbooks.” Isn’t that the tail wagging the dog? The curriculum is paramount, whereas textbooks are the resource for teaching the curriculum. We don’t teach the textbook; we teach the curriculum. We don’t assess what’s in the textbook; we assess what’s in the curriculum. Each local school system has adopted textbooks they judged to be most effective in teaching the new Georgia Performance Standards.
Clearly, we need to monitor and support implementation of the Georgia Performance Standards over the next several years. Essential to the success of this new curriculum will be ongoing teacher education and development. If we stay the course with our strong, cohesive and coherent mathematics curriculum, student achievement by all metrics will steadily improve.
Maureen again: If you read down this far, you are interested in math and probably have your own opinion. Please share it with the rest of us. Thanks
.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
94 comments Add your comment
AP Teacher
September 24th, 2009
9:22 pm
First of all, the notion that there are no books is a flat-out falsehood. In fact, we have TOO MANY books! We have the textbook, the practice workbook, and the Note Taking Guide (so the kids don’t have to learn how to take their own notes). The problem is the fact that the Technical Diploma was done away with. In any given class period – I can have 4 different levels of students in my math classroom – Special Ed., Technical Level (who are taking a College Prep level course, since that is all that is offered), a true College Prep level student, and a foolish Honors level student who dropped down a level because they figured the coursework would be easier. Couple that with having upwards of 32 students in a classroom, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Now, for good measure – throw in students who have become used to being “remediated” (ie – keep retesting me until I get the grade I want), and parents who want you to co-parent their children (because “I’m a single parent…”), and it becomes a disaster.
What is going to happen is that tons of students will be GIVEN a 70 by the teacher so they will appease their principal, parents, and students – and make the teacher in the next course this unprepared students has hate them with a passion…
Veteran teacher, 2
September 24th, 2009
9:41 pm
Forgive me for being blunt, but I am so tired of all of this. I taught Math 1 last year, and we had over 90% of our students pass the class. None of the teachers who taught Math 1 are considered “easy” or “easy graders.” I teach in a somewhat rural school district that has representation of all ethnic groups, and we have all socio-economic strata with over 40% free lunch. All of us used a balance of state frameworks, text book, and our own teacher-made materials.
We are VERY pleased with our results, and most of the students are perfoming in Math 2. We give the PSAT to all 9th, 10th and 11th grade students, and we immediately noticed that the 9th graders last year outscored the other, older classes, on the math portion of the PSAT.
To all of you that seem to think that the curriculum is too difficult for most students, I will report that our special education students did extremely well. I had the lowest functioning student I have ever had in class in over 25 years of teaching, and he made a high B in the class. His only real modification was extra time on tests. Keep in mind that I am considered a “hard” grader, especially by the lazy elite students and their parents. If this kid can make a B with the GPS Math 1, anyone can.
To all of those concerned about group work, the fact is that NOBODY said that the GPS required teachers to use group work 100% of the time. I attended every training event that I could find. NOBODY ever said that students should spend all their time working in groups. Personally, I spend about 60% of the time in fairly traditional lecturing/demonstrations, and about 40% of the time in other activities, including group work.
Parents, if math instruction is not working in your school, demand that the teachers teach. If the teachers are griping about the new curriculum, demand that they make it work. My school worked on learning the GPS standards for three full years prior to implementation. If that did not happen at your school, the teachers may be behind. Demand that they come up to speed immediately.
Further, parents, please make sure that your kids are giving their best effort. Of the 10% that failed Math 1 in our school last year, the vast majority failed due to work ethic problems. I DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE STUDENT IN GRADE TROUBLE THAT WAS GIVING ME HIS/HER BEST EFFORT!! If people are truly spending 2-3 hours doing math homework every night, there are problems somewhere in the mix that have nothing to do with the curriculum.
My message to students is to get up off your rear ends and get to work. Stop complaining about how hard everything is and do the work. Learn the material. If you learn the material, the grades will be there. There is nothing in the actual curriculum that is beyond the average and above average student. It has been my experience that below average students can also learn this material.
To teachers, teach the curriculum. Study the standards. The math is there, and Math 1 and Math 2 do not require calculus. In fact, the standards are similar to Geometry and Algebra 2. The difference is that the GPS require performance on significant mathematics beyond the previous year. To those teachers that are basically lazy and do not want to change, get over it. If the past 20 years of mathematics instruction were so wonderful, nobody would have been in favor of ANY changes!!
Now, for what really makes me mad!! For the past 25 years, I have repeatedly heard from many different groups that the mathematics curriculum in the state of Georgia has not been sufficiently challenging for the vast majority of students. Now, the State Board of Education has adopted a very challenging and comprehensive mathematics curriculum K-12 for the entire state. This curriculum requires both students and teachers (and probably parents) to really work and to perform. Now, many are complaining the curriculum is too challenging, and “my child can’t get it.” The state of Georgia has been criticized for years, and yet when they stepped out to raise the rigor of the math classes, the complainers immediately lined up. Please take a look in the mirror and really think about what you are saying.
If you see problems with math instruction in your school, please address the problems AT YOUR SCHOOL. Please do NOT assume that “it is happening everywhere.” IT IS NOT!!. And, PLEASE leave us alone. We are doing quite well. In the “Good Old Days of the Golden Age of Math Instruction,” I never had a 90% success rate, especially in a class with a truly rigorous curriculum.
For those of you that will read this with your minds already made up and do not wish to be confused with the facts that I have laid out, please limit your personal attacts toward me because I am a really nice guy and a very popular teacher. I think it is truly a shame that people in the United States can no longer disagree without personal attacks flying everywhere. Jefferson and Adams must be crying somewhere!
whatever
September 24th, 2009
9:59 pm
marianne – I hope you don’t want grandchildren. It sounds like although your son acquired a great job on Wall Street, he will spend his adult life in the company of his pet cats and his ferret, Fluffy.
d
September 24th, 2009
10:10 pm
If the GPS has no textbooks, why do I see students walking around my school carrying Math I and Math II textbooks (I teach social studies, and have not looked at the contents of these books to know what is inside though). I find it interesting that we took a model based upon the Japanese system. Why don’t we truly go to the Japanese system and test students before they get to high school, and if they don’t make the cut, they are prepared for a vocation, and the rest, the best and brightest, are allowed to continue with academics and be compared to the students of the United States, where we insist that everyone receive a well-rounded academic education until they reach the age of 18. I’m not here to bash our system, but when we compare our system to those around the world, we are comparing apples to oranges.
parent
September 24th, 2009
10:26 pm
AP teacher – I believe what your saying – however my child (9th grade) is not a special ed or technical student and is having to spend too much time trying to figure out the “new math” program in Georgia – from what many in this blog are saying I am not alone.
Alan Cook
September 24th, 2009
10:31 pm
National math test scores continue to be disappointing. This poor trend persists in spite of new texts, standardized tests with attached implied threats, or laptops in the class. At some point, maybe we should admit that math, as it is taught currently and in the recent past, seems irrelevant to a large percentage of grade school kids.
Why blame a sixth grade student or teacher trapped by meaningless lessons? Teachers are frustrated. Students check out.
The missing element is reality. Instead of insisting that students learn another sixteen formulae, we need to involve them in tangible life projects. And the task must be interesting.
A Trip To The Number Yard is a math book focusing on the building of a bungalow. Odd numbered chapters cover the phases of the project: lot layout, foundation, framing, all the way through until the trim out. The even numbered chapters introduce the math needed for the next stage of building and/or reviews the previous lessons.
This type of project-oriented math engages kids. It is fun. They have a reason to learn the math they may have ignored in the standard lecture format of a class room.
If we really want kids to learn math and to have the lessons be valuable, we need to change the mode of teaching. Our kids can master the math that most adults need. We can’t continue to have class rooms full of math drudges. Instead, we need to clandestinely teach them math via real life projects.
Alan Cook
info@thenumberyard.com
http://www.thenumberyard.com
Reality 2
September 24th, 2009
11:07 pm
Well, it appears that people are saying that the new GA math standards are too challenging (for both teachers and students) and our teachers and students just don’t have what it takes to successfully implement a successful math program. So, let’s all go back to the old math that got us into where we are now. If that’s the case, let’s not waste much money on schooling anymore. Maybe we can stop spending money and let it slide to the 50th place. We can fire most teachers and replace them with those people standing in the corner with the sign, “Will work for food.” Let’s use all the money saved for more tax cut. We need it to boost our economy.
Fed up
September 25th, 2009
4:42 am
This is simply another whole language debacle, and we will reap a generation of students who hate math, and can’t do math. Please get rid of C. Cox – she is poison to GA Education.
d
September 25th, 2009
6:08 am
If the GPS has no textbooks, why do I see students walking around my school carrying Math I and Math II textbooks (I teach social studies, and have not looked at the contents of these books to know what is inside though). I find it interesting that we took a model based upon the Japanese system. Why don’t we truly go to the Japanese system and test students before they get to high school, and if they don’t make the cut, they are prepared for a vocation, and the rest, the best and brightest, are allowed to continue with academics and be compared to the students of the United States, where we insist that everyone receive a well-rounded academic education until they reach the age of 18. I’m not here to bash our system, but when we compare our system to those around the world, we are comparing apples to oranges.
Jennifer
September 25th, 2009
6:41 am
Stephen,
My comments were not suggesting whether or not the math standards are adequate or inadequate, but rather it is likely the “implementation” (ie the ability for teachers to effectively teach the material due to resources, inadequate training, etc) that I would imagine is one of the issues. Sorry that my comments were interpreted otherwise. Your call outs are certainly appropriate – if the standards are higher and students were unprepared – of course there are going to be challenges!
And as for second graders discussing math. That’s terrific, as long as they know their math facts.
And as for what grade math do I teach – I have had to reinforce every math class instruction for both of my students for lets see…about a dozen years. I did have to stop at Calculus. Couldn’t remember my math facts. Maybe tonight I will have a discussion about that at dinner.
Darren
September 25th, 2009
9:43 am
Veteran teacher, 2 – Fantastic post! The sanity you bring to this blog is greatly appreciated!
William Casey
September 25th, 2009
11:08 am
Three short comments that apply to all learning from a retired high school history teacher with 31 years experience:
1. PROPER FOUNDATION: It is impossible to “think about nothing” and do something useful unless you are Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein. Cart before the horse.
2. COOPERATIVE LEARNING (GROUP WORK): Has a little value but fairly useless UNLESS it results in a “finished product” and counts as a BIG grade. I did ONE well conceived, on-going cooperatve learning project per semester and it counted as two major tests. The students learned valuable real life lessons as well as the academics.
3. PARENTS SENDING STUDENTS TO SCHOOL “READY TO LEARN.” self-explanatory. I’ not their daddy!
mom
September 25th, 2009
12:25 pm
Let’s be truthful here. GA and especially Cobb County are NOT using anything that resembles Singapore Math or what is used in Japan. How do I know? First I ordered the Singapore math books. Second, I have friends in Japan and I have talked to them about what is taught in the schools. Just because Kathy Cos and company say it’s so doesn’t make it so. Japan uses textbooks…
Cobb County
September 25th, 2009
1:22 pm
I agree with Fulton county, you have to follow the money. KSU is getting tons for Cobb County to continue down this math path. It has nothing to do with the kids. My daughter is making A’s in math7/8 but it is from what we taught her over the summer – not from her teacher. It seems some schools have books, some don’t, a hodgepodge, bottom line we are doing this so KSU can continue to receive their millions in grant money. No one cares about the education for the kids unless you take time to do that yourself. Cobb County School system is so corrupt they don’t care and are happy to have someone dictate what should be taught.
For the teacher that had 90% of the students pass Math 1, was that after they throughtout the EOCT, or after they averaged the grade from block 1 and block 2 when so many kids failed first time they had to retake?
Christy
September 25th, 2009
2:01 pm
I have read as much as possible about the math smoothie GA is pushing and I can emphatically state that it is crap! I have three children in the public school system. If I could afford it, all three would be removed TODAY primarily due to the math curriculum. Bottom line: it is not more rigorous (as the state/counties claim), it is just more jumbled and will not provide the proper foundation for higher-order math thinking. I am not blaming the teachers (although I have met several who should be fired due to incompetence), but I am blaming the state. They have adopted a math curriculum that has proved ineffective in several states throughout the nation. Why are we repeating their mistake?
All three of my kids receive supplements at home in order to “stupid proof” them. I am teaching them traditional mathematics with the goal of mastery of math facts and algorithms. Thankfully, I am able to do this based upon my education and the fact that I have the time to do it. I pity the students whose parents can not help in that way.
Lest somebody thinks I am supplementing to help my children perform better in their math at school, let me assure you that all three of my children are able to muddle through with high marks in the current crappy curriculum. However, because I feel so strongly that each of them is being cheated, they get mommy math on a regular basis and my eldest will begin taking supplemental online courses (Alg. I & II and Geometry) through Johns Hopkins University. We are doing this so that if we move in the future to a state with traditional math, his new school will know exactly where to place him. That is our situation. It is not ideal, but we will continue to persevere so they will not need remedial math in college, as so many of the reform math graduates have needed.
That said, parents need to do the research to see the harm reform math has done. Look at other states. Read up about constructivisim and understand why it can not take the place of hard work learning math facts and algorithms. Also, if your child is highly-capable in math, please consider the damage this curriculum does by not allowing your child to move through at an even faster rate. My son is in this situation. Math I – III are prerequisites to Math IV. Gone are the days where good math students could take multiple math classes (Algebra II and Geometry) at the same time. Additionally, if your child is not taking Accelerated Math I in middle school, they probably won’t be able to get Calculus in high school. I don’t see more rigor in that. This doesn’t even take into the fact that transfer students into/out of the state may not be placed appropriately in their new school.
As a final thought, parents should FOLLOW THE MONEY,,, I believe that KSU, Georgia, and GA. Tech (my alma mater) are receiving quite a few grants to develop, help implement, design tests for, and even determine the ultimate success of the program. Seems a little too chummy for me.
Mathamaniac
September 25th, 2009
4:25 pm
Enter your comments here
Many of you touched on the fact that the majority of students, especially in high school, do not have the rigor to buckle down and apply themselves consistently in order to be successful at math. The causes are varied, but I believe it boils down to a lack of discipline and mental toughness brought on by societal distractions and misguided priorities in the home starting in the pre-teen years of our children. If a majority of Americans can once again instill in their children a love of reading, a curiosity in the wonders of science and a sense of amazement in the beauty and complexity of numbers and what they represent, then students will see the relevance of mathematical concepts and develop the abilities and skills to carry them through their careers and personal lives. In other words, parents, teachers, administators, and the community should focus not on test scores, nor arguments touting whether group or individual work is better for math instruction, nor whether the current standards are too easy or hard but rather what it will take to get our kids back into a mode of loving to learn. And at the forefront of that effort should be our teachers, who must recognize that it is their responsibility to develop a rapport with each of his or her students in order to determine what will truly inspire them to do just that.
Veteran teacher, 2
September 25th, 2009
5:41 pm
Cobb County, we are NOT on block schedule, we have a year-long seven period schedule, so there is no averaging of grades. Allow me to repeat myself. I am condsidered “hard” and a “hard grader”, as are the other Math 1 teachers. 90% of our students passed the class, including all but four of the special education students. Of those that failed, we gave them the opportunity to take a VERY rigorous summer school experience tailored to the parts they did not do well in. There was much wailing and crying, but they had to PERFORM to get credit. All but eight students got through the summer school and are now in Math 2.
I realize that nothing I say will change the minds of those that already have their minds made up and do not wish to acknowledge the facts from my experience. If your experience is less than favorable, I am sorry for you. Please take up the matter with your school. I promise you that I am not the only one in the state with a similar story.
I had a principal from a nearby school system visit my classroom for half a day last year. When she left, she said, and I quote, “I have just witnessed students doing what my teachers say cannot be done. I just saw students learning mathematics from the Math 1 GPS (We were in Unit 2 at the time), and this obviously was most definitely not a class filled with gifted or students who love taking math. I am going back excited to tell my teachers what I have seen.” Sadly, those teachers rolled their eyes and continued to complain that “their” students cannot do the work.
To those that respectfully disagree, that is find. I also respect your opinion. However, please do not try to spin my facts to your direction or assume that I am painting a rosy picture. I can assure that I never have worked as hard teaching as I have in implementing the Math 1 GPS.
To those of you on block schedule, remember that I said we started working on the high school GPS three years before the scheduled implementation? The first conclusion we reached was that the math GPS would NOT work with a block schedule. Fortunately, the rest of the school agreed, and we went to a seven period schedule before the GPS was implemented in any high school subject area. Many of the complaints about the math curriculum in this blog are actually administrative structural problems within schools. These problems can be solved, although some things are extremely difficult to change in large systems with multiple schools at each level. Administrative structural issues should never be a reason to criticize a curriculum.
Now, let me really break the news to the folks that are against group work. The use of groups in instruction actually has little to do with the implementation of the math curriculum. Instead, the increase in use of group work coincides with the implementation of the Georgia School Performance Standards (GAPSS). Tony, please chime in on this topic. You are always on the mark in discussing these matters. Student engagement is a major portion of GAPSS, and GROUPING STRATEGIES ARE AN EXPECTATION FOR EACH SUBJECT AND GRADE LEVEL. So all of the complaints about using group work in mathematics are actually griping in the wrong place. As a veteran teacher, I will plainly state that it is not appropriate to use group work in every situaiton 100% of the time. I stated before that I am about 60% traditional lecture/demonstration and 40% other methods, including group work.
Lastly, for those that long for the days of the “tried and true” lecture, there is the problem that the average teenager in 2009 has an attention span of about 4 minutes. So, I have to question how effective those that lecture all the time actually are. I also do not think that ranting and raving about “making” the students listen will work, either. There is probably a balance there that most can live with.
I do wish that people on this blog would realize that honest disagreement is a good thing, and many times analyzing opposing viewpoints leads to a better decision. The rampant cynicism and spinning of people’s opinions is counterproductive. Jefferson and Adams (and many others) sharply disagreed and yet managed to do so with respect and mutual admiriation. I am concerned that our current society has lost the ability to disagree with civility and respect.
Been There. . . Done, well. . . just done!
September 26th, 2009
11:31 am
To ‘MyOpinion’ and ‘parent’, I also liked the traditional math, and view NCLB as a political, jumbled, UNsuccessfully researched piece of junk (mildly speaking). When others tout NCLB as having based on ‘proven’, ‘results-driven’ methods and stats which demonstrate how ’successful’ reform efforts worked in some Texas schools, know this: these schools, such as the Brazosport Independent District (unsure if the spelling is correct in ‘B’) FUDGED their data, and their fraud was exposed! Yes, I’m certain there are some solid Texas schools (not a blanket generalization on the state), but W’s ’successful’ reform efforts in Texas have only resulted in average test scores and SAT scores 5-10 spots higher than those of Georgia. The traditional math worked well in some schools, but the ‘educrats’, ‘central office wonks’, and political ‘job-justifiers’ decided the “new math” was more worth it – their buy-into seems to be held over their heads and threatens their cushy, fluff, central office jobs which could easily be cut, save on salaries, and easily have it divided between two other central office employees whose combined salaries would STILL amount to less than the high-priced, politically-linked position of the central office policy ‘wonk’. Bottom line: the “new math” is much ado about nothing!
Cobb County
September 26th, 2009
12:33 pm
Veteran Teacher 2, I’m happy to hear that you are not on block. In Cobb the push has been to have all schools on block. We have 2 schools, Lassiter and Walton, that are not on block. Pope has finally gone to a hybrid to compensate for math, although parents have been pushing for several years for the change.
I would love for you to mentor the teachers here. I repeatedly hear the kids are not prepared for the math class. My child is strong in math and doesn’t struggle, but as I said before, we teach her formulas and like at home. She was constantly placed with the lower performing students, in her classes, in order to bring up their grades. As mentioned earlier, she would do all the work and essentially share the credit. This was not a unique situation to math, but across all subjects just as you have stated.
My issues with math are with both Cobb County’s implementation, and the State. Cobb took their direction from the state and ran full force with every fad idea that KSU provided them.The teachers have been told that even if children are ready to move on to different level do not go beyond the state GPS for that grade. If you cannot explain your thought process to the answer your answer cannot be correct nor must you truly understand the concept. This is extremely frustrating in the primary grades where some children fully grasp math concepts but have not fully developed the verbal capacity to articulate the thought process. Instead of developing a love of math we frustrate them because the first or second grader could not write a paragraph explaining why 57 one blocks is a total of 57 ones or 5 tens and 7 ones. For those of you that want to say I’m off my rocker, this is an exact question on my 2nd graders math work which was marked wrong because he did not catch total and listed 7 ones. It was explained to me, that although he may know his math facts and multiplication tables, he cannot move out of place value because he cannot articulate his answer even if it is worng. Hope you caught that, you can give the wrong answer and get credit if you can describe how you got there.
As to your grading, I have spoken with Kathy Cox, she doesn’t believe in averaging but grading to the standards. In other words, if at any point the child shows understanding the grade is an A in that subject. So when you say the kids learned the material are you using the new assessment method recommended by Cox?
Veteran teacher, 2
September 26th, 2009
2:54 pm
Just can’t accept another point of view, can you? A very high percentage of the grade is based on tests. My tests are thorough, on topic, and have no fluff. Students are required to display and apply their knowledge. Anyone who has lazed around and copied the answers from someone else (believe it or not, some students will copy work even if they are not in a group!!) is in real trouble when they see my test, and if they make 30, they make 30!! Everybody complains about how hard and thorough they are. I have found over the years that students will rise to the level you demand of them. I continuously raise that level all throughout the year. A’s are very difficult to get, and I am rarely accused of grade inflation.
The reason we did well last year is that I worked my butt off, the students either worked their butts off or they were “encouraged” to do so, and our parents by and large backed our efforts. We offered full and complete information about what was going on as soon as the information was released to us. As concerns came up, we listened and addressed them. We all kept a positive attitude, and we collectively made it work.
Be careful what you say in the area of grading. Grades have always supposed to have been tied to standards or objectives, or whatever was in vogue at the time. The issue of partial credit will also come out in a way that most people do not like.
Also, for the record, I have consulted in the past with around 10 or so teachers from Cobb County. I don’t remember what high schools they taught at. I know you probably do not want to hear this, but they were all VERY positive about the new GPS. Sorry that none of them are at your school.
One last thing, then I am going away for good on this topic. I have heard Kathy Cox being blamed for the math curriculum. If you research the situation (I am sure most people won’t because they don’t want to take the chance of being confused by the actual facts), you will find that is not the case. Yhe original recommendation to the state BOE from Cox and DOE math consultants included an amped up version of Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, Trig/Pre-cal, etc. THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS REJECTED BY THE STATE BOE. Mrs. Cox and the DOE math people were instructed to return with a recommendation for an integrated mathematics curriculum based primarily upon the “Japanese” model. The entire process was put on hold for a year while this happened. When presented to the state BOE the math curriculum was the ONLY GPS curriculum that was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the state DOE up to the time of that vote!! The GPS was originally supposed to be implemented a year before it was. You can look it up if you wish. If anyone is against the curriculum, fine. Please just have your facts straight as you argue!
Cobb County
September 26th, 2009
4:40 pm
Veteran teacher 2, shame on you for being on your high horse. I actually agreed with you on a few items yet you start with “just can’t take another point of view.” Don’t know where those teachers in Cobb are they you are referencing. We hear the same story from all but Dickersen Middle School. As for the “Yhe original recommendation to the state BOE from Cox and DOE math consultants included an amped up version of Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, Trig/Pre-cal, etc. THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS REJECTED BY THE STATE BOE. Mrs. Cox and the DOE math people were instructed to return with a recommendation for an integrated mathematics curriculum based primarily upon the “Japanese” model” comment I’ll go back and research. I’ve been involved since 2004/05 school year with the math changes. I never once heard Ms. Cox say anything in regards to pitching anything other than what we have at the moment. And what we have is not based on the Japanese model, if you think so then I suggest a trip to Japanese schools.
Veteran teacher, 2
September 26th, 2009
6:31 pm
My apologies. I never said that what we had was the Japanese model. I only reported the chronology of the events and who did what. I also have not at any point advocated the “Japanese Model,” and at no point have I said what my opinion is of the GPS math curriculum. I have no intention of sharing my opinion with anyone, as my opinion is irrelevant. When the curriculum was adopted by the state BOE and the local BOE, it was then my job to implement the curriculum to teach all students assigned to me to the best of my ability. I have given every part of my being toward that end. My posts were in response to the people who were attempting to paint a picture of gloom and doom for the entire state based on their experiences. My experience is different, and I shared my experiences with the readers. Nothing more, nothng less.
As it so happens, while I have not been to a Japanese school, I have a friend who did. She brought back a set of high school textbooks. The set-up of the problems was similar to the frameworks. From the numbers and equations involved, it was apparant that the students using these books would have to connect ideas and apply knowledge, which is the same thing the writers of the frameworks say they are attempting to do.
Like it or not, the current math GPS CAN be effectively implemented. That is all I have been saying, no more, no less.
Veteran teacher 2 signing off.
Reality 2
September 26th, 2009
7:53 pm
Verteran teacher 2,
Thank you for being a “voice of reason.”
Some might say that the GPS is BETTER than the Japanese standards. The Japanese schools do not require math from their HS seniors – technically, not even from Juniors. Many mathematics teachers will admit that their curriculum is not strong in the area of statistics, and the GPS incorporated the recommendations by the American Statistical Association.
So, as you said, it is really up to each teacher to help his/her students understand what are expected from them, using whatever the approach that they feel is appropriate.
N. Ga Teacher
September 26th, 2009
8:23 pm
Enter your comments here
Veteran Teacher 2 and Mathmaniac offer great insight. I am a Georgia math teacher, and they are both exactly right. First, the new curriculm is tougher, but also perhaps more relevant and interesting. Many of the “tasks” written by state hacks are hilariously overambitious, wordy, long, and out-of-touch, but they will eventually be properly edited for the intended audience. Kids will learn if they try, and there are 3 different levels of difficulty : accelerated (the typical honors kid), regular, and yearlong with support. Yes, unmotivated students WILL fail. It is astounding how many kids refuse to listen, refuse to work alone or with others, and will not study in or out of class. Usually these kids have no good parent figures, and have to be placed in the repeater class the following year, which then endangers their chances to graduate on time. But that has nothing to do with math, as these kids do the same with all their academic subjects. Many kids could be saved by having sweeping changes in graduation requirements combined with creation of all-tech schools.
Math01
September 26th, 2009
9:03 pm
Most of the textbooks on the state approved list do not align well with the GPS . If as you say, many teachers do not have the content knowledge to teach the standards, they will be forced to rely on the textbooks and the electronic lesson plans developed by the state to determine what actually goes on in a typical classroom. These lesson plans seem to reflect the Instructional Frameworks more than the GPS. The template for picking out textbooks penalizes for examples and explanations. These are all the more important if subject matter knowledge can sometimes be an issue. A good textbook allows a motivated teacher or student to teach themselves conceptually and shows them the connections among a myriad of math and science concepts.
There are textbooks that could be used in combination to fully and sequentially teach the math GPS. The Singapore math textbooks are one example and the Brown & Dolciani PreAlgebra and Algebra books are another example. Neither is on the approved list in Georgia.
The NMAP report was looking at NC which numerous school officials in Georgia have said we are trying to emulate. The pages cited above go on to state that 4 years of NC integrated math cover less material than 3 years of the traditional Algebra 1 and 2 and Geometry sequence. Time in school is finite.
Finally, my assertions are supported by documentation. You may disagree with them or they may make you uncomfortable. That does not make them “ridiculous”.
STILL DON'T BUY IT
September 26th, 2009
9:04 pm
I use to have compassion for teachers for what they do, but after reading this blog – I don’t think they have compassion for the parents and students who are having bad experiences. Your “standards” maybe ok? but your implementation !!! BOE? Keep working out the bugs – my kids will be long gone by the time you figure it out or throw it out. I’m out of here.
Math01
September 26th, 2009
10:01 pm
Maureen, what happened to my post?
Math01
September 26th, 2009
10:02 pm
Enter your comments here
Most of the textbooks on the state approved list do not align well with the GPS . If as you say, many teachers do not have the content knowledge to teach the standards, they will be forced to rely on the textbooks and the electronic lesson plans developed by the state to determine what actually goes on in a typical classroom. These lesson plans seem to reflect the Instructional Frameworks more than the GPS. The template for picking out textbooks penalizes for examples and explanations. These are all the more important if subject matter knowledge can sometimes be an issue. A good textbook allows a motivated teacher or student to teach themselves conceptually and shows them the connections among a myriad of math and science concepts.
There are textbooks that could be used in combination to fully and sequentially teach the math GPS. The Singapore math textbooks are one example and the Brown & Dolciani PreAlgebra and Algebra books are another example. Neither is on the approved list in Georgia.
The NMAP report was looking at NC which numerous school officials in Georgia have said we are trying to emulate. The pages cited above go on to state that 4 years of NC integrated math cover less material than 3 years of the traditional Algebra 1 and 2 and Geometry sequence. Time in school is finite.
Finally, my assertions are supported by documentation. You may disagree with them or they may make you uncomfortable. That does not make them “ridiculous”.
1.
Math01
September 26th, 2009
10:16 pm
part 1
Most of the textbooks on the state approved list do not align well with the GPS . If as you say, many teachers do not have the content knowledge to teach the standards, they will be forced to rely on the textbooks and the electronic lesson plans developed by the state to determine what actually goes on in a typical classroom. These lesson plans seem to reflect the Instructional Frameworks more than the GPS. The template for picking out textbooks penalizes for examples and explanations. These are all the more important if subject matter knowledge can sometimes be an issue. A good textbook allows a motivated teacher or student to teach themselves conceptually and shows them the connections among a myriad of math and science concepts.
Math01
September 26th, 2009
10:16 pm
part 2
There are textbooks that could be used in combination to fully and sequentially teach the math GPS. The Singapore math textbooks are one example and the Brown & Dolciani PreAlgebra and Algebra books are another example. Neither is on the approved list in Georgia.
The NMAP report was looking at NC which numerous school officials in Georgia have said we are trying to emulate. The pages cited above go on to state that 4 years of NC integrated math cover less material than 3 years of the traditional Algebra 1 and 2 and Geometry sequence. Time in school is finite.
Finally, my assertions are supported by documentation. You may disagree with them or they may make you uncomfortable. That does not make them “ridiculous”.
Math01
September 26th, 2009
10:17 pm
part 2
There are textbooks that could be used in combination to fully and sequentially teach the math GPS. The Singapore math textbooks are one example and the Brown & Dolciani PreAlgebra and Algebra books are another example. Neither is on the approved list in Georgia.
The NMAP report was looking at NC which numerous school officials in Georgia have said we are trying to emulate. The pages cited above go on to state that 4 years of NC integrated math cover less material than 3 years of the traditional Algebra 1 and 2 and Geometry sequence. Time in school is finite.
Finally, my assertions are supported by documentation. You may disagree with them or they may make you uncomfortable
philosopher
September 27th, 2009
2:08 pm
Mathmaniac, I totally agree with you on much you said- As a veteran parent, I insist that the parents’ attitudes toward education, and reading in particular, can make or break a students’ path to success. I also know that educational systems can kill a child’s love of school, simply by failing to understand the basic principle that people do NOT all learn information in the same way! Rote learning nearly drove my son insane in public school. He did well with the few teachers who realized that one could get the material quickly and move forward like a steam engine and that sitting doing problems over and over and over again burned out his engine.Without our vigil, support and persistence in his early years, he would have failed miserably. He is now a brilliant classical guitarist and an engineering student at the top of his class. My middle daughter needed that practice, doing it over and over and over helped solidify the info for her. And my third…she just gets it and loves the program. Some people learn faster than others, some take a long time getting it, and some will never get it. Why is that so hard to accept? Kids are just NOT cattle- the system we use causes some kids to be over run completely and only the strong (or those with truly involved parents) survive. The present system was created way back when only a select few attended school-the rest were out farming and making a home. We have moved forward into a different age while holding on to antiquated ideas. All children NEED a math education that allows them to survive in a techno, highly competitive, world where jobs are not plentiful and all need to work. We need to prepare them. We need to completely rethink and revise the entire education system, to provide education for all types of learners. Hope for a satisfying future goes a long way toward keeping kids on a forward path and out of drugs and addictions that derail them. So, parents and teachers, let’s give them hope that they CAN succeed.
HS Math Teacher
September 27th, 2009
11:24 pm
I’m in my first year teaching the new curriculum using the Carnegie Learning System. I’ve taught for nearly 20 years in a rural high school in Georgia. I would love to say that all is well, and kids are making great gains; however, it’s too early to tell – I’m not feeling good about what I’m seeing. The biggest complaint that I have is the elimination of the CORE Math curriculum. The teacher that is having so much success in Cobb County (and I’m glad he’s doing well with the new system – wish we all could) would probably have different results in our little high school with over 60 percent of the kids receiving free, or reduced lunch. Over a third of our Math 1 students failed last year (under different teacher), and I now have on average about 30 in each Math 1 class this year. I’ve just about abandoned group work, in that there’s just too many immature kids who fake work, and just want to socialize. I have to come down hard on them like a drill Sargent to make them do the work. The kids aren’t terrible – just too many for this to be effective.
There needs to be a TECH LEVEL track for high schools that need or want it. This one diploma deal might work well in the affluent north metro area of ATL, but not in “pea patch” Georgia, where you have an over abundance of poor minority kids. I have had much success in the past teaching math at all levels, including non-AP Calculus; however, I can tell already at this point in time that it is going to be an uphill challenge to get all kids, from various levels of math ability, to go all the way through Math 3. I disagree with the notion that all kids should learn the equivalent of Algebra 2 before they graduate. It’s just a matter of time before the failure rate will reach a certain point, and then we’re going to have a real big, expensive mess trying to go back to the traditional method. Not all kids have what it takes (maturity, mental ability, socio-econ. background) to be successful learning higher level math. Most probably do in a rich community…but not here, and probably not at many other rural schools. Sure, we can breeze them through…just implement a curve where at least 80 percent of the students pass, but that’s not a good practice for obvious reasons. Or you can slow down to where about 80 percent can learn. I’m finding myself doing the latter, and it’s really a struggle to go at a rate where I can cover everything I need to before the end of April.
Last gripe: I know the subject material as presented has the backing of some elaborate research; however, I really don’t like the presentation of eight or nine different type of mathematical functions within one or two units of instruction, where they must know the domain & range of each, know how to graph them, and problem solve, and then throw in sequence rule writing right after that. Save it…I know that sequence rules are functions, but I just don’t like the scrambled egg approach to learning. Yes, the kids get a lot of exposure, and will probably go more in depth in Math 2; however, this mile wide and inch deep method doesn’t feel right to me. Mark my words…and I hope I’m wrong (and I will do my best as a teacher), but this new system will fall right on it’s a&%. Yes, Kathy Cox, ALL KIDS CAN LEARN…but at different rates, and if they’re willing!!!
Reality 2
September 28th, 2009
5:57 am
What is the “Georgia Learning System”? The GPS does NOT specify how you are supposed to teach – it’s just a collection of learning expectations. If you want, you can focus only on algebra during one grading period, geometry in another, etc. You can use “traditional” books you have been using.
HS Math Teacher
September 28th, 2009
3:24 pm
I agree, Reality 2, and understand that the math changes involve defined standards in lieu of the objectives, curriculum changes to meet those standards, and a framework that encompasses what a student should learn by certain established time periods. The system I am referring to is the one we chose created by Carnegie Publishing. The sequencing of topics presented is the publisher’s doing – that’s not a problem created by the State. I should have left out the last paragraph of my post above. I will say though that Carnegie Learning has a great tutorial software program, and other very good resources. I never have to make up tasks, or create worksheets, graph paper, etc. Books are consumable, and can be changed from year-to-year to reflect any changes the State may make.
I still contend there should be a BASIC or CORE curriculum for those kids who will never go to a college, and are headed to the military, technical schools, or straight to a job. That’s the biggest complaint I have. We do not have an accelerated track, and ALL kids are being shoehorned in a one diploma system. I’m going extended day as is, with around 30 in each class. I’m already seeing a few more gray hairs on my head.
not buying the new curriculum
September 28th, 2009
9:21 pm
HS Math Teacher, I really urge you to contact your state legislators about passing new graduation laws. They tried last year, but the legislation died in committee. I don’t think there was enough cause for alarm at this time last year.Now that the class of 2012 (first class affected by the one track college prep diploma for all mentality) are moving closer to the liklihood of increased dropout rates, people will start to sit up and pay attention.
Reality 2
September 29th, 2009
5:48 am
There is an accelerated math, isn’t there?
In the original state plan, there was also a “slower” track, too. I don’t know what happened to that one, though.
ScienceTeacher671
September 29th, 2009
9:29 pm
Some schools have a slower track with “Math Support”….if you’re currently doing math at a 3rd or 4th grade level (according to ITBS, anyway) you’re probably going to have trouble with Algebra, though.
Forsyth Dad
October 28th, 2009
11:57 am
Veteran teacher 2, I appreciate your perspective. I have two ninth-graders in Accelerated Math II and they are going nuts this year, after experiencing similar difficulty last year trying to take regular 8th-grade math and Accelerated Math I simultaneously last year. The problems they have experienced are primarily with the teaching method, or lack thereof. It appears to go something like this: 1.)They are given a “task” in class and start work on it, with the teacher walking around helping those that have questions — often teaching the same thing to multiple individuals. 2.) They come home and continue working on the task, only to discover more things they can’t figure out no matter how hard they try. 3.) They show up at the teacher’s room before school the next to get help completing the assigned task. 4.) The teacher answers questions in class about the assignment. 5.) They finish the task on their own time, to be turned in the day of the unit test for a grade. 5.) They take the test, and often run out of time. Maybe this happens because the method they “figured out” was not the fastest; who knows.
In at least one case it was after one son got the test back that figure out if they thought they understood something but didn’t. That son, taught by the one who is the true believer in this “discovery” method, is currently failing the class. The other, taught by a teacher who sympathizes with their frustration and occasionally slips in a little actual teaching, was doing much better until his teacher started collaborating with the other teacher in an effort to be consistent.
I suspect that a less “mile-wide, inch-deep” curriculum would help them with their self-learning, but it’s hard to say given the issues with they have getting somebody to teach them anything. I keep going back to their 7th-grade accelerated math teacher, a citizen of South Africa whom we were blessed to have through a visiting-teacher program. He taught the curriculum, but he also challenged them with advanced concepts and inspired them to figure things out creatively. He had a class full of actual fans. The son who is failing said this morning that he wished he had a teacher who “wanted to be the best math teacher in the world.” That, he said, was what drove Mr. Williams, his hero from seventh grade.
Dennis
November 2nd, 2009
9:28 pm
I have taught for quite some time and I can say without hesitation that Math 1 is an absolute disaster. The children are not getting what they need. One in five will go to college, but the curriculum is college prep. Vocational skills are not being learned, and if academic standards are maintained, then the failure rate is horrendous. While we are standardizing everybody, why don’t we just put them all in a size 9 shoe as well?
Fulton’s decision on math raises questions for all districts | Get Schooled
January 8th, 2010
4:12 pm
[...] has been a big topic here. This entry will give you [...]
Stop devaluing teachers and making them the scapegoat of CRCT investigation | Get Schooled
February 24th, 2010
10:08 am
[...] County parent Kim Learnard set off a firestorm last year with her piece criticizing the new math. Now, she has sent me a great piece she’s written about the CRCT investigation and what she [...]
Stop devaluing teachers and making them the scapegoat of CRCT investigation » iThinkEducation.net!
March 3rd, 2010
4:18 am
[...] County parent Kim Learnard set off a firestorm last year with her piece criticizing the new math. Now, she has sent me a great piece she’s written about the CRCT investigation and what she [...]
Liz Smith
April 21st, 2010
3:04 pm
Lack of communication is the cause of my angry towards Math 1. The state will say something vague like “Use area and volume models for polyonomials” so I did plenty of these type examples with students. Then my students come back to tell me about a question on their EOCT that was so beyond basic volume and area. I wish the state would communicate better with the level of understanding the students need to be given. And yes, I said GIVEN!
As for the performance tasks- I quit doing those 2 months into the year. My students hated coming to my class, hated doing the work and would remember more of the story line than the material. Fiona and her fences are not important- MATH IS IMPORTANT!!! I teach like a traditional teacher and hope for the best.