Why are so many people in Georgia mad about math?

As a certified math teacher (but currently teaching another subject), I’m optimistic about the “new” math model. One issue I see are some of the “old model” teachers. They change to the new style with great reluctance, which becomes indirect sabotage due to the lack of buy-in. As for SAT scores, that’s unrelated. That test measures trickery, I can teach a kid to raise their math score 100 points no problem, have done it for 15 years. How? Tapping into the meaning of the test, as something to beat. The new math also tries to tap into the meaning of things, to inspire kids. Letting kids get more active is so much better.

• Link
• Report this comment

As my daughter completes enters her junior year at MIT and as an educator, I want to comment on the “new math”. My child learned the concepts in one math class before she moved into another math class. By learning the concepts, she was able to apply them. She attended a Georgia Public School, and she learned the “old math.” I feel that with the new math the state introduced it without enough training for the teachers. Now the state is planning to increase class size. Of course, this will help the performance in Ga a great deal. Also, there needed to be time to get the information to parents and support and help for parents. Having information On Line is Great, but that does not take the place of an individual talking and explaining and demonstrating. I am a special education teacher. As an individual sitting in some of the training sessions by the State of Georgia, it was not clear that all of the state people understood it and articulated it. They sure could read well. Peterson and Eaton list all these great things about the new math. May I make a suggestion? Let each of them go to a school that has students with many challenges. Let each of them teach classes at that school for an entire year. I do not want to hear that they taught in the past. I am speaking of now in 2009. They must teach a full teacher load and deal with all the other duties of a teacher.After doing that for a year, then come back and share with us. I always love to get advice from people that have not been in a classroom. They are always the ones that can help you solve all of the problems.

• Link
• Report this comment

I often hear/read about teachers complaining to others who make any suggestion about education by saying, “well teach a year then come back to talk to us.” I find this attitude very perplexing. Are teachers the only ones who can talk about education? Is teaching full time the only way to learn about what is going on in classrooms today? How is the experience in one classroom (one’s own) generalizable to all other classrooms? Could people who have opportunities to see tens and hundreds of classrooms develop a broader understanding of what classrooms are like today?

Also, when someone makes this argument, an underlying assumption is that today’s students are different and we need to adjust what/how we engage our students. So, you are saying the necessity of new curricula and new programs. Yet, many of these people then turn around say, “what was good enough for me is good enough for my students.” If that’s the case, what’s the problem of having experiences in classrooms 15 years ago?

I think MIT has a good point about teacher training. On the other hand, the new standards were published several years ago, and teachers had a few years to prepare for it. How much of it (lack of preparedness) is the state’s responsibility and how much of it is teachers’ own professional responsibility?

• Link
• Report this comment

perplexed – you have hit one of the nails on the head. Teachers’ responsibility to stay informed and up-to-date in their field. I have seen too many that resist efforts to improve the quality of education in our schools.

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgia Educators have listened to the “low SAT lament” long enough. Every Georgia High School receives a yearly report from the College Board on the performance of their respective students on the SAT for the previous year. On the front cover of the report is this message:
“Media and others often rank states, districts and schools on the basis of SAT scores despite repeated warnings that such rankings are invalid. The SAT is a strong indicator of trends in the college-bound population, but it should never be used alone for such comparisons because demographics and other nonschool factors can have a strong effect on scores. If ranked, schools and states that encourage students to apply to college may be penalized because scores tend to decline with a rise in percentage of test takers”. Since this information comes from the people that created and administer the test why do we continue to listen to those – from the Governor on down – that insist on making exactly the comparisons the College Board says not to make? Even more puzzling is why Educators seldom challenge those erroneous comparisons and spend time and money in futile attempts (see The Governor’s Cup Challenge) to increase state SAT scores. If we were genuinely serious about increasing SAT scores – and raising Georgia’s “standing” above 47th – the only statistically viable way to do that is to limit the students allowed to take the test. Perhaps a more intelligent solution would be stop making the silly comparisons and rankings the College Board warns against.

• Link
• Report this comment

As the mother of a freshman at UGA and a sophomore at a public school, I have a few observations about math instruction which may or may not be pertinent to this discussion.
Both of my sons were in gifted classes in elementary and middle school. Both took Algebra I in eighth grade for a high school credit. My older son then progressed through (honors) Algebra II, Geometry, Trig, and AP Calculus. Math is not his strongest suit but he managed to make A’s. Because of the switchover in math courses (I don’t know if this is statewide or just our county), my younger son received an elective credit for his Algebra I class and was enrolled in “accelerated Math I” for 9th grade. Unfortunately, the teacher, while being a smart man (he has a doctorate), was not a good teacher. In fact, his contract was not renewed for this year and that decision was made before the budget cuts made their effects known. My son made an A but says that it was only due to what he learned from his eighth grade math teacher. Now my son is in accelerated Math II and is struggling as are many of the other students who had this same teacher last year. Granted, last year was the inaugural year for this new concept of integrating Geometry into all of the other math classes. They have worked from as many as 5 textbooks and all of the teachers seem to be feeling their way through the courses. But the subject matter itself has not changed!
The point is that just because you are personally good at a subject doesn’t mean you will be a good teacher.
Additionally, our system is on the block schedule. I, and many teachers to whom I have spoken, believe that block scheduling is especially bad for math instruction. You may not have math for an entire year and, as you know, math directly builds on what you have learned previously. Many subjects, such as science, are separated into specific areas such as life sciences and physical sciences and do not need continuity of instruction.
I personally am tired of my children serving as guinea pigs for the education system. This problem also occurred when my older son was in early elementary school and some “bright” administrators decided that Georgia should use the “whole language” approach to teach reading. What a disaster! We lost a lot of instructional time and I had to teach phonics to him.
If my children, who are fairly intelligent and have parents who can tutor them in most subjects (a mechanical engineer and a biologist), have problems, I can only imagine the plight of the kids whose parents are incapable of helping due to a lack of education or interest!
And before you teachers start railing about lack of parental involvement… Teachers must take some responsibility in the success or lack thereof of their students! Yes, parental involvement is necessary but I have seen plenty of teachers who must either be burnt out or went into the field for reasons other than a love of teaching. It is much easier to teach the bright and eager student. It is much harder to reach and teach the student who is not “ideal”. You know, the ones who come in with instructional deficiencies or attitude problems. Yes, I know that you can not be all things to all students but if you don’t have an enthusiasm for teaching, a drive to be innovative in your teaching methods, and a desire to be of service to the students you teach, then take a sabbatical to recharge your batteries or RETIRE.
My sincerest thanks go to the awesome teachers that my children have had and a big raspberry to the substandard ones!

• Link
• Report this comment

People are still operating upon this utopian philosophy: If the teachers teach, the students learn. No, there is an intervening variable…the student’s motivation or lack of motivation to learn. It’s just that simple but the Educational Flat-Earthers don’t seem to understand this. I have to agree with one of the above writers…this small group stuff (with students essentially supposedly teaching each other) is preposterous.

Do you think that “higher standards” would have kept Mr. Henry from being killed by one his students yesterday in Tyler, Texas? Hardly. Nothing will improve until the educational policy-makers (school boards, etc.) get a grip on student discipline. As long as discipline is out of control, the schools will languish. In the fewer and fewer schools where there is strong discipline, the academic performance usually correlates with the strong discipline. You have to want to NOT see this. (c) MACE, September 24, 2009.

• Link
• Report this comment

RCT:

Funny, Jenkins and Cook were thrown in JAIL this year because of their illegal activities with the schools there. That you still defend them says FAR more about you than me.

• Link
• Report this comment

Unfortunately, even with all of the changes, curricular revisions, and other directives, the state’s overall education system rankings, test scores, and SAT scores still have not risen high enough for us to start making headway versus the national averages and the competition, i.e. the other 49 states. Having been a teacher, I agree with another blogger on teacher training and have this to offer: those charged with training the classroom teachers have more of a central office bent (ALTs, ILTs, teacher-trainers whose jobs have to be justified via the amount of paper & number of packets they generate); thus, they’re at the whim of the upper-level managers who say THEIR version of how the curriculum should be taught is THE best! Why doesn’t the state BOE have staff members specifically charged with training teachers, administrators (yes, these folks ABSOLUTELY need to be trained as though THEY’RE in the classroom as well), and parapros on a ad-hoc and/or consistent basis?! Some may reply, “There are state staffers charged with such duties – did you not pay any attention to those folks sent to your in-services?!” Those state staffers, unfortunately for us, spoke for 1-5 minutes (in an introductory capacity), sat down, and allowed the county higher-ups and ALTs to talk about it. Our comments? Without saying anything to most administrators (a majority of whom do NOT encourage critical comments on the delivery of curricular changes to us, especially when county office officials are presenting), approximately one-half of their session was fluff, and. . . again. . . left many of us with the impression their “job” was to make sure they found a way to take up as much of the allotted time as possible. Why am I not talking about the math curriculum and how to implement it (especially in THIS blog)?! Simple: our teacher workday time and in-service time could EASILY be more efficient with more, but shorter, sessions, allowing the classroom teachers more time to. . . discuss more ways to match our delivery to the objectives of the math curriculum! If newer, shorter in-services don’t collectively take up as much of a teacher workday as before, then GREAT! This leaves us MORE time to work with the other subject-area teachers to role-play, implement strategies into our lesson plans, etc. My point? Administrators (to a degree), central office staff (to a LARGE degree), and state “figureheads” collectively blunt the efforts (some knowingly, to protect their own power base) we undertake to implement these curricular changes in the most efficient and effective manner! Make it “short and sweet”, show us what other teachers have accomplished with these changes, and let us work with our COLLEAGUES to make sure these work for our STUDENTS!

• Link
• Report this comment

In my opinion, I think the new math is a bunch of bull. After viewing the “new” GA math curriculum, there was nothing listed that I did not have available to me as a K-12 student in the Atlanta Public School System. As a 2004 high school graduate, the teachers that were available to me were already doing what the “new” curriculum currently suggests. As a young child, I was consistently among the 95-99 percentile in math, scored a 610 on the SAT (when max was 1600) and made a perfect score of 600 on the GHSGT. My math teachers first taught the traditional ways because those ways will provide the correct solution every time, then taught creative way to retain the same information. We were allowed to play interactive games such as math quiz bowls and have discussions, which were created by the teacher and covered the lesson over the past week (in both middle and high). I loved school (once I was there). I had fun but still learned if not mastered the knowledge for the next grade level. I did not start to dislike school until the implementation of NCLB, but I digress. My teachers did not teach for a test, they taught for the understanding of the subject. We did not proceed to the next concept until we mastered the first, since the following concept usually relied on knowing the previous one.

However, since it has already been implemented, the main issue with the new math is that it was never introduced in the right format in order to make it effective. Yes teachers must have some responsibility to learn the new curriculum, but more sessions should have been provided so they could learn how to successfully cover the wide range of material. If there are no textbooks available for students, how do they expect parents to be able to help their child(ren)? Most of my teachers taught from multiple recourses using the textbook as another resource. At the beginning of a new lesson, my teachers would make a reference of the section they were teaching from so if we had problems at home our parents could help. Even in this technologically advanced, economy challenged age, everyone does not own a computer and/or have access to the Internet. With the lower level classes most parent do not usually have problems, but with the upper level classes such as Algebra 1 and Trig parents might have a problem.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jean:

Long story short, I worked in Randolph County for the last 7 months of my teaching career, and the racist Superintendent there made my life a living hell so that I would quit and he could hire his daughter (who graduated college as a middle school math teacher in December of that year and needed a job).

Whoever this ‘RandolphCountyTeacher’ is has never set foot in Randolph and continues to attack me any time I appear on this board.

Bobby Jenkins, the racist Randolph Superintendent, had his tail thrown in JAIL this year over contempt of court because he refused to attend School Board meetings at the time the 2 white and one of the black school board members had voted in an open meeting of the school board to change the meetings to. Thus, he was finally officially exposed as everything I had been claiming him to be for 3 years.

• Link
• Report this comment

My Opinion,

So, you say Georgia’s “new math” isn’t really new, and I agree in general – there are some new topics and some old ones (from, say 20 years ago) are gone. The teaching you experienced is consistent with what the new standards are emphasizing – good teaching is good teaching. It’s not that all discussion or group work is bad – poorly executed discussion or group work is bad – just as much as poorly executed “old” math was. Unfortunately, your experiences haven’t been the norm in GA, thus we need to keep emphasizing it.

I think a common theme in many of the posts here today is the need for more teacher training. The training they need isn’t superficial one, and they haven’t been doing that well (on average) in GA under the old standards. So, there is no reason to believe going back will somehow solve the problem – we didn’t have a “good old days” under the old standards.

• Link
• Report this comment

RE:”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.”

There are so many oher societal factors in play in Japan besides curricululum that affect student performance. To think that adopting their math curriculum will duplicate their results is naive pure and simple. If this curriculum is so great, Why has NY State already dumped it? As for NC, here is a link to Wakefield High in Raleigh. Scroll down to view their course offerings in math. I see the traditional Algebra I, Geometry, etc. I don’t see that they are teaching Math I or integrated math, so how can North Carolina be held up as a success story? http://wakefieldhs.net/academics/math/courses.php

The fact is students in the class of 2012 in particular have been guinea pigs. They started the new curriculum as sixh graders. They were not properly scaffolded for this curriculum in the years leading up to sixh grade and have suffered ever since. Their teachers EVERY YEAR since sixth grade have beeen teaching a new curriculum for the very first time. How is that a good thing?

Maureen, while it’s true SAT scores can’t (and shouldn’t) be used at his point to measure the success/merit of the new math, let’s look at student success rates with MATH I. How many ninth graders failed
Math I last year? How many were enrolled in summer school for Math I this past summer? How many tenth graders are taking Math I again this year? I would love to see these numbers!

• Link
• Report this comment

To parent- The Math I EOCT didn’t count. I don’t know if the school districts even received results. I could be wrong, but somehing tells me the scores weren’t released and are being used to “norm” the test.

• Link
• Report this comment

There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those that know enough math. to understand binary numbers and those who don’t.

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree Parent. The state BOE should be required to release the EOCT results from last year. Then we would know how successful Math I was last year for our students. That might have an impact on using these students as guinea pigs since the sixth grade. I am very concerned that this year’s 10th graders will graduate with very poor Math skills compared to the grades ahead of them. How is this good for our students.

As a follow up to the various endorsement comments,how about a survey of all high school Math teachers in the state to see how this curriculum working. But, that might reveal the truth from the teachers who are actually teaching this new Math approach.

Tony, your comment was unfair. I know many teachers who are working relentlessly to teach this Math. They are tutoring before and after school and trying to provide students with the skills they need to pass this course. Also, I find your comment interesting about an organized group trying to discredit this Math approach. Why would any one waste their time discrediting something that was working? Is the true answer that many of us are parents who are living this New Math on a daily basis trying to help our children succeed with a new confusing approach that is not highly accepted with few to no resources to assist us in helping our children while contending with a block schedule that makes the relearning process difficult at best. Again, if it was working, whye would so many “stakeholders” in this situation be opposed?

• Link
• Report this comment

GeorgiaRat

I understand

lol

• Link
• Report this comment

It is absolutely astounding that ANY one reading this can muster up the nerve to blame teachers in this state of the problems it has. Learning starts with the parents, and the vast majority of parents today take zero responsibility with their childs education. They ship them off to school and think that they are supposed to magically learn through osmosis, and then get upset when their kid doesn’t so well.

Teach some discipline in your house, raise kids that aren’t worthless and lazy, and actually have the desire to learn. Don’t call your kids teacher the night before an assignment is due (that they have had four weeks to complete) and ask for an extension. You are enabling your child’s failure, plain and simple. Establish consequences, teach kids that if they don’t try, if they don’t do the work, then they fail.

We are facing a serious, serious problem in this country, and that is the complete apathy that our youth, and more importantly their parents, have towards education and success.

• Link
• Report this comment

I have not seen what this “new math” entails, however I know that math is not any different than it was 50 years ago. Arithmetic and Algebra is pretty much the extent of what any student learns unless they elect to take calculus.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dan,
I implore you(and anyone else posting here who is not familiar with the new curriculum) to take a look at it. It is NOT the math we grew up with. Concepts that used to be part of math courses taken in the jr. or senior year have been pushed into 9th and 10th grade math without the proper building blocks. This is a huge problem and Georgia’s kids are being sacrificed.

• Link
• Report this comment

How can the schools teach delivery, design and how can teachers use the explicit method to teach the Math to all students?

• Link
• Report this comment

GeorgiaRat–great joke! Most will never get it.

I have a mathmatician daughter. Her take on the new math (she has been out of high school 6 years) is–hogwash!

As a teacher I can tell you there is too much skipping around and not enough MASTERY. Some of that is my county’s take on how to “make” children “successful”. Also, they have to be “explosed” to all the GPS, even though they have not mastered the GPS from 2 years previous. If they cannot do 6×7, how do they do 42×7 or 4.2×7? If they don’t understand borrowing and regrouping, how do they do division problems? The answer, of course, is they DON’T.

Until ACTUAL, TEACHING TEACHERS of REAL STUDENTS have significant input, it will remain a mess. And until we ditch the feel good approach to “success”, none of this works.

• Link
• Report this comment

My two cents from up here in Forsyth County…overall great schools and great teachers and we are thankful. BUT, this math program is nuts. Both my kids (10th and 8th)said in unison that this group teaching is a “joke” and all the kids do is copy answers off the supposed “smartest” kid in their group. We have no clue how to help either with homework and we are both college-degreed (I have J.D.) I am grateful we can have a tutor once/week @ 50 bucks/hour but feel for those that can’t. I assure you we won’t see test scores rising anytime in the near future…

• Link
• Report this comment

LOL, Georgia Rat – I have a T-shirt that says something similar

About 10 years ago when my niece was in the 2nd grade, my sister called me to talk about some trouble my niece was having in math. she described to me this spiraling exposure to which I replied “that’s crazy.” Well, flash forward to now, and my niece’s school system up north has gotten rid of the system – meanwhile we have adopted it.

To a certain extent I think “math is math.” The new standards have some good things, this this concept of exposure is silly – teach them to mastery build their skills, then move them up. Of course parents need to be involved in their kids’ education, and we all know what happens when they’re not – that’s the kid your kid doesn’t want to sit next to in class.

• Link
• Report this comment

Found it

• Link
• Report this comment

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…

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Veteran teacher, 2 – Fantastic post! The sanity you bring to this blog is greatly appreciated!

• Link
• Report this comment

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…

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Maureen, what happened to my post?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

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!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment