The state’s new math program: “Kids are failing left and right”
The AJC has a long story today about the slippage in math grades in the state, which the state Department of Education attributes to the higher standards. Some posters here attribute it to the state adopting an unproven and unworkable math curriculum.
Many of the critics here on the blog have researched this issue and raised compelling arguments about whether Georgia adopted successful math program ingredients from other states or threw a lot of ideas in a pot and produced a foul stew all of its own.
But the state appears determined to stay with the program. The most valid concern to me is whether there was adequate training of teachers before the state rolled out the new math, which introduces tougher concepts earlier and integrates math instruction across disciplines.
The real question is whether the new state school superintendent will agree. With the resignation of Kathy Cox, I have no idea who will be our next school superintendent. I do think how Georgia teaches math will be one of the big issues during the upcoming campaign in which many newcomers will have to introduce themselves quickly to the voters.
According to the the story: (This is only an excerpt. Check out the whole story.)
“In my classes, I have 60 kids and only 17 are passing. You know how stressful that is on me?” said Donna Aker, a veteran math teacher at South Gwinnett High School.It’s a problem common to many metro Atlanta schools. Nearly one in five ninth-graders in metro Atlanta last year got an F in Math I — the first year of the state’s new math curriculum in high school.
The math failure rate was more than double that experienced by the same group of kids in the eighth grade the year before.
The tougher curriculum is already forcing some of the area’s better students to reconsider signing on for another year of bench-pressing binomials. Some switched to general math their sophomore year, afraid of getting another low grade.
Jessica O’Brien was a straight A student with hopes of going to Harvard University.
Those hopes grew a little dimmer after she got a D in math as a ninth-grader. She opted out of the accelerated program.
“I’m worried I’m going to almost fail again,” said Jessica, now a sophomore and cheerleader at Campbell High in Smyrna. “I’m so used to being good at math.”
Jessica’s mother, Susan O’Brien, backed her all the way.
“Kids are failing left and right, I’m talking your high achievers who never fail,” said O’Brien, who is concerned about Jessica’s shot at Harvard. “My daughter loved math and had been on the math team but only got out with a D in Accelerated Math II. My biggest fear is that it is going to hurt her when she applies for college.”
Starting with the Class of 2012, every Georgia student must pass four years of math to receive a college prep diploma even if he or she plans to attend a technical school or enter the work force after graduation. Special needs students can appeal to opt out after completing Math III if they stay concurrently enrolled in math support classes and a review of their education plan makes it clear that the course would be the highest level they could achieve.
Aker says the program is so accelerated that upperclassmen who used to help her tutor can’t do the math the freshmen do.
“The algebra in Math I is as advanced as what I was teaching to students in Algebra II junior year,” she said. “Some of my juniors in the National Honor Society and Beta Club haven’t even learned it yet.”
When the state initiated this new era of souped-up instruction in math, pushing students to grasp complex concepts in algebra, geometry and statistics sooner than ever before, the goal was to produce a new generation of college-ready teens to compete globally.
By prolonging the exposure of all students to complex math, the state expected to help increase Georgia’s average SAT score, which ranks near the bottom among states.
“On the SAT, when we looked at all of the kids who have taken math at different levels, we found that even our high achievers are still performing below the rest of the country,” said Matt Cardoza, a spokesman for the state Department of Education. “Our kids are just as smart as any other kids. They need to be able to compete with students around the world for jobs and college.”
The math overhaul was pushed by state Superintendent Kathy Cox. Now that Cox has announced she will not seek a third term, some parents and teachers wonder whether the program will continue at the same accelerated pace, be diluted or scrapped altogether by her successor.
For students, the program got off to a rough start.
In 2009, nearly 20,100 failing grades were handed out to high school freshmen in Georgia — about 17 percent of all grades given in the new Math I course. That’s more than double the percentage of failing grades given in the eighth-grade preparatory class the previous year, according to state statistics obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
In metro Atlanta, nearly 19 percent of Math I grades were F’s.
It’s also tough on teachers, including some who say they were not properly trained to teach the new content.
“You have to cover everything. It’s a lesson a day,” said Aker, who is co-president of the Gwinnett County Association of Educators. “There is no time to get them to master each section.”
Janet Davis, the state’s math program manager, believes that “as students, teachers and parents become more comfortable with this curriculum we will see the scores increase.”
At Duluth High, the 2009 math grades concerned principal Jason Lane so much that he developed a plan to give 100 select freshmen flexible block schedules next fall so they can have 90 minutes of math instruction instead of 52 and earn more credits.Now, as students take End of Course tests, the state will soon have its first progress report on how well students are performing under the increased demand.
Aker says the state should consider spreading Math I and Math II over four years to give students more time to understand them. “To have every child take this math, those who aren’t going to college, those who are special ed in self-contained classrooms, to me feels like a conspiracy on how to make kids fail.”
Davis, the state’s math director, however, says she is “pleased” with early results from End of Course tests given in December 2009 to students on block schedules taking Math I. Overall, 61 percent met or exceeded standards in Algebra I and 65 percent met or exceeded them in geometry, which is slightly better than under the old curriculum. Students still learning English, however, performed better under the old curriculum. She is counting on exam scores as well as SAT scores to improve over time as students move through school. The Class of 2019 will be the first to have had the accelerated math exposure from kindergarten through 12th grade.
“I can’t see a benefit of offering a math program a student couldn’t use to go to college, technical [school] or the workplace,” Davis said. “… What we are giving our students who struggle is an opportunity to feel as successful as our students who are mathematically talented.”
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
220 comments Add your comment
Shayna
May 21st, 2010
4:38 pm
My middle son was in the second year of the revised math curriculum and took Accelerated Math I in 8th Grade at a top, DeKalb middle school, earning a high A. According to the State DOE website, this meant he should have covered all of Algebra I and most of Geometry under the old curriculum, leaving some minor points out with regard to arcs for future years in the integrated curriculum. The math curriculum was one of the primary reasons we pulled him private for 9th grade. We opted to put him in Honors Geometry for 9th Grade. He has done very well in Geometry but he has been shocked at how much new material he has learned that was not previously covered under the old curriculum. Then, in preparation for Algebra II, they were given a placement test. He found it hard and he did not easily “cruise” through that test. There were gaps there as well. This is an excellent student who is good at math who has gaps from the state curriculum. Fortunatly, his current school is identifying and filling the gaps. I find it most notable that I know 6-12 legislators who have their own children, or grandchildren, enrolled in Kumon, for math — they find that to be a more appropriate way to learn. To me that is most telling. The state should have found a program that was working somewhere else and adopted it in toto. They never should have been allowed to waste taxpayer money developing an untested new curriculum to test on our children. There are so many “tried and true” options available that they could have adopted without creating the mess they’ve created just be taking a working math curriculum from another state — all it, including training materials (teachers even….).
Attentive Parent
May 21st, 2010
4:46 pm
Maureen-
I remember the story on the 10th grade PSAT as other posters and I asked you to look into how the 10th graders at the AP merit high schools did as compared to previous years.
We had been told the scores across the state for 10th graders were about the same. Most of us know parents in the high achieving well-known metro schools and were consistently being told the scores for the 10th graders from families with a solid record of high achievement were down and that those schools especially were seeing declines.
AP merit high schools would thus serve as a proxy for the effect of this math curriculum so far on the highest achieving students.
We never heard anything further from you and it’s clearly not a part of this AJC story.
A group of Cobb parents made a comparable request of the Georgia DOE. Again silence.
This silence makes it hard to believe the anecdotal accounts are false. The math GPS has a particularly harmful effect on the higher achieving math students.
What a tragic way to close the achievement gap.
Angry APS Math Teacher
May 21st, 2010
5:20 pm
My EOCT results for math II were scaled too high. Claire Pierce and Dr. Dottie Whitlow are complete fools. During an APS training session, Whitlow (ahead of the aps math funded through a 22 mil $ GE grant) would say the craziest things to us and would get up on the tables like she was some loony church preacher motivating us to do a better job. Gee, thanks mom, I do have my college degree and I am not in diapers. She is also a bully and intimidates the our math coach. Pierce (refer in an earlier post) used a class of about 25 students to show an example of these highly touted “tasks” OH have you guys heard of these tasks? anyways, the children were to create a normal distribution curve using data from measuring the circumference of a tennis ball. Since everyones measure would be slightly off, this made for a great activity. No child knew the circumference of a sphere but we (teachers) during that training could not help the kids(which is fine because they are trying to get us to teach “inquiry base”, like socratic method of teaching where i answer your question with a question). Pierce would try to ask a question to get the kids to recall but failed. The tennis ball itself took almost an hour and did not get to the normal distribution. within 30 minutes of the activity, the bored teachers got on their phones, unprofessional I know but they were bored with it and we are smart enough to see this training is just stupid. Now APS pays well and we will NOT mess with jobs so we will do and say as we are told. THIS IS THE EXAMPLE SET BY THE STATE. We need less highly paid persons who can talk the talk. We need to drop this entire mess and go back to the traditional way. Whitlow, I have seen nothing from you that shows any professionalism, you are too emotional for the job, you give us no help and you suck for that. Go away!
Dekalbite
May 21st, 2010
5:25 pm
“By prolonging the exposure of all students to complex math, the state expected to help increase Georgia’s average SAT score, which ranks near the bottom among states.”
It takes more than “exposure” to complex math to increase the number of students we have mastering higher level math skills. Unlike all other subjects (except science – in particular chemistry and physics), math is a vertical rather than a horizontal subject. If you do not lay the foundation and build, you will never master the more complex content.
For example, if you do not understand addition, you will never understand multiplication which is nothing but repeated addition. If you do not understand subtraction, you will never understand division which is repeated subtraction. If you cannot add single digit numbers, no one can teach you how to add double and triple digit numbers. Math is like a house. You cannot build the walls without a foundation to attach the walls to and you cannot put a roof on a house with no walls.
English, Reading, History, Political Science, etc., and to a much lesser extent some Science content are what I would term horizontal. You can understand much of the content simply by being a good reader. Understanding math is much more dependent on direct instruction and less dependent on independent reading skills.
A wonderful book that has a chapter dealing with Asian children’s math fluency is Malcom Gladwell’s book Outliers. Chapter 8 entitled “Rice Paddies and Math Tests” has some very provocative ideas. Here is a link to an excerpt to this chapter:
http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/outliers_excerpt3.html
Fascinating reading for teachers or laypeople who are interested in how children acquire math skills.
DD
May 21st, 2010
5:29 pm
@ parents don’t understand,
Well, I think a person who doesn’t unerstand the significance of “incenter,” “orthocenter,” etc. seem to be a bit underqualified to make a judgment on the quality of a math program.
What set me off? Hmm… Maybe just your ignorance.
Josie
May 21st, 2010
5:29 pm
I have been researching our “new math” in Georgia in which we have an integrated approach (Math I, Math II, Math III, and Math IV in high school and for starting for some in middle school) versus a traditional single study approach (Algebra I, Algebra II, etc.). In our math curriculum, all of the math subjects are intertwined in the same courses, rather than seperated into their own course as they have been for years.
The Race to the Top Application states that Georgia is the only state in the country in which an integrated math curriculum is required for all public school students whereas a few other states have an integrated approach as an option. The overwhelming majority of states still use a traditional approach to middle and high school mathematics.
In my research, I found that the National Mathematics Advisory Panel was established a few years ago to review the research on mathematics education to determine what the research stated could improve math achievement. This report was published in 2008. This document is a well-respected review of the research and was published under the United States Department of Education. Well it seems that the NAMP stated on p. 22 that
“A search of the literature did not produce studies that clearly examined whether an integrated approach or a single-subject sequence is more effective for algebra and more advanced mathematics course work. The Panel finds no basis in research for preferring one or the other. An analysis of high school mathematics standards, and one state’s standards in particular, suggests that high school students enrolled in mathematics courses using an integrated approach to mathematics may find it more difficult to take advanced mathematics course work (e.g., calculus or precalculus) in their senior year than high school students who are able to enroll in an Algebra II course in their sophomore or junior year.”
This begs many questions. Why would the Georgia DOE change the curriculum from a traditionl single-subject approach to an integrated approach if there is no research to support that it is better? If we are trying to increase student achievement, shouldn’t we have invested in those instructional practices that are supported by research? Over the last few years, millions and millions of dollars have been spent on implementing the integrated curriculum if you consider all of the person-hours devoted to training, re-scheduling the building, re-establishing graduation requirements regarding this new math, etc. Was this one big experiment that had no basis in research? Have we wasted our time and resources on an unproven approach when we could have been focusing on instructional components that are known to increase math achievement?
The questions continue. This year’s 10th graders embarked on the new math curriculum in their 6th grade year. Every year since then, they have been the guinea pigs. Their teachers during each year have been implementing a new math curriculum for the first time. Have we implemented one big experiment or gamble on this generation of students?
The Georgia DOE might state that they followed the lead of other countries in implementing an integrated approach. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel addresses this by saying, “The curricula of most high-achieving nations in the TIMSS study do not follow the single-subject sequence of Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II, but they also differ from the approach used in most U.S. integrated curricula. Instead, Algebra, Geometry, and Trigonometry are divided into blocks. The teaching of
each block typically extends over several months and aims for mathematical closure.”
Did we try to imitate other nations and unfortunately develop something that falls far short and that is not supported by research?
The Georgia DOE has been somewhat elusive in their reporting of results of their new math curriculum. When they brag on improvements in 8th grade math on the NAEP, for example, they lump in the years that included the old math curriculum with the new math curriculum. The gains are even modest when that is done. What about the results of any end-of-course-tests? Have those been published and analyzed?
Have we fallen for one big experiment and wasted huge amounts of tax dollars and more importantly wasted our students time in the efforts of trying something new?
Kumon...
May 21st, 2010
5:33 pm
… another Japanese program to rescue. Maybe they know how to help students who struggle with the GPS since they are expert in helping students in Japan.
Attentive Parent
May 21st, 2010
5:38 pm
DD-
I was part of a panel of parents asked to review some of the proposed textbooks for Math 1 several years ago. The textbook saleswoman kept insisting that “as you all know, math is all about the vocabulary”.
I take it you would agree with her.
just browsing
May 21st, 2010
5:57 pm
Let’s just face it- all children are not interested in higher level math. Every student is not destined for college. Provide alternative tracks to help ensure that students are on a path that they can be successful with and graduate. The focus should be on making sure that learning is within their “zone of proximal development”. Accelerated is not best for all students. We want to keep them in school not give them reasons to drop out.
Leigh
May 21st, 2010
6:01 pm
Are you kidding me? This new curriculum is a joke. They only cover three or four topics for the entire year. There are few applications. The problem is the fact that these topics are not connected. They go from basic statistics to congruent triangles to quadratics. The poor excuses for textbooks have minimum practice problems and even fewer applications. Give me a break! It’s a terrible curriculum. Go back to teaching Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, Trigonometry, and Calculus. If the teachers would actually teach the material, grade the homework for accuracy, and give assignments and tests that actually have students apply the concepts, student achievement would sky rocket! Trust me. Been there, done that! This curriculum is embarrassing, and the ones suffering are the students. I can’t wait to read how many will be taking remedial classes in college!
North Fulton Parent
May 21st, 2010
6:54 pm
It appears that there are comments about many issues, but we need to focus on the critical issue…to date, there is no published evidence from nationally administered tests to prove that the new math program is serving students well. Additionally, there is no state in the nation that has adopted and achieved success for their students using a similar program.
For all of the people on the blog who talk about teaching the new math and the gains over the past two years, classroom performance and teacher opinion is not sufficient to evaluate the mastery of students. If it were sufficient, the university would admit students based on teacher recommendation. Instead we rely on nationally administered standardized tests, i.e., ITBS, SAT, ACT, PSAT.
Now we can review the test results to date:
ITBS – first two years of students passing through 8th grade demonstrated a reduction in test scores on ITBS.
PSAT – first year of students passing through 10th grade demonstrated a reduction in test scores.
SAT and ACT — still unknown as the first group of students will not take these tests until late 2010 and 2011.
And of course, Cobb County was so confident that they eliminated their original baseline for ITBS by switching from testing in 8th grade to testing in 7th grade….wow, this is really an interesting piece of evidence that should cause everyone to feel uncomfortable. And the extremely weak argument about time spent testing in 8th grade is pathetic….in the course of their K-12 education will the 7th grade testing result in any less loss of time…please, this was hugely pathetic!!
As for another idea that we should be willing to wait for 5-10 years to see improvement…this is crap!! No other profession is allowed to make changes to their processes and fail to capture meaningful data with the promise of an evaluation in the 10th year. If you hear of a corporation with this policy, don’t buy their stock!!!
For the parents who participated in textbook reviews and purchased traditional math books for comparison, the failing grades are not surprising. The new math is taught as a quick survey class, moving through concepts in the incorrect order and not requiring mastery of the concepts (e.g., the poor kids who were taught volume before area…what brilliant mind decided that 3-D was best learned prior to 2-D).
If you would like to know whether your child is learning math, please purchase the books recommended by Attentive Parent. If your child has been served well by the math program, they should have no problem working through the books without your help. If your child has not been served well, you can help tutor them so that their future career choices are not limited by the brilliant minds that think 5-10 years is acceptable to work out the kinks and determine whether the new math is good or bad!!
In the end, I have not yet found a professional engineer, scientist, etc. that has confidence in the new math program….and the Boeing engineers have been fighting this same program in Seattle in excess of 15 years. So it seems to me that teachers might think about talking to the people who use math in their career field to determine what level of performance is acceptable. I am weary of the people who talk about arithmetic as if it is identical to mathematics!! And no, math is not similar to syntax in a foreign language. Math is not creative…it is analytical….there is ONLY one right answer for each problem!!
At least with Kathy Cox leaving Georgia we should be able to elect someone who will force the modification of the math program and save the next generation of students!!
drew (former teacher)
May 21st, 2010
7:10 pm
Dekalbite…thanks for the link…fascinating stuff. I’ll be checking out the book. I’ve always wondered why Asians seemed to excel at mathematics…I just attributed it to their high regard for the value of education. And it’s provocative in that it suggests that one race might be superior to another at certain tasks, which will get you a charge of racism from many. But the fact is its not about race at all…it’s about the culture (specifically, the language), and how something as basic as language can impact the understanding of mathematics.
For those who don’t like to click links, here’s a short excerpt. Try the exercise provided and see how you do.
————————
From: Malcom Gladwell’s “Rice Paddies and Math Tests”
Take a look at the following list of numbers: 4,8,5,3,9,7,6. Read them out loud to yourself. Now look away, and spend twenty seconds memorizing that sequence before saying them out loud again.
If you speak English, you have about a 50 percent chance of remembering that sequence perfectly If you’re Chinese, though, you’re almost certain to get it right every time. Why is that? Because as human beings we store digits in a memory loop that runs for about two seconds. We most easily memorize whatever we can say or read within that two second span. And Chinese speakers get that list of numbers—4,8,5,3,9,7,6—right every time because—unlike English speakers—their language allows them to fit all those seven numbers into two seconds.
ScienceTeacher671
May 21st, 2010
7:56 pm
They don’t all talk at the same time, they don’t all walk at the same time, they don’t have the same athletic or dance ability, and they don’t all wear the same size clothes….so why do we keep expecting them all to have the same academic abilities?
That said, in our school, the students who are having the greatest difficulty seem to be those who were socially promoted from middle school without passing the CRCT, and who don’t have basic math skills, and those who were just barely promoted but are not even close to working at grade level in math (remember that a student must be at the “exceeds” level on Georgia tests to be anywhere close to grade level.)
Like Booklover, I live in a district with a high percentage of military dependents. It is not right for these students to have to transfer in and out of a state with a totally different math curriculum which doesn’t directly correspond to that in other states.
I believe there is a mistake in the data!
May 21st, 2010
9:16 pm
Maureen,
I will email the article’s aithor about this, but re:
“The grades were retrieved from a data file provided by the state Department of Education. Where there wasn’t a letter grade, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution used the following traditional grading system to analyze the data: 90-100, A; 80-89, B; 70-79, C; 60-69, D; below 60, F.”
THIS IS NOT THE CURRENT GRADING SCALE USED IN COBB, where the grading scale is as follows:
90-100 A; 80-89 B; 74-79 C; 70-74 D; 69 and below F
Cobb reports grades numerically, so if the author counted all of the students from 60-69 as passing, the chart in this article is way off!!! I really thought the failure rates here looked low. Kids have in fact been failing left and right–more so, I believe than this article presents.
Can we get some clarification on this data?
I believe there is a mistake in the data!
May 21st, 2010
9:21 pm
My post above should have read 70-73 D
I thought this was a statewide grading scale.
Can hs teachers from counties other than Cobb chime in on the grading scale being used?
theedge
May 21st, 2010
9:26 pm
This new math course is a mess! MAth is foundational and these 1,2,3,4 Math courses throw that to the wind. In addition to that the book is useless. I have a large amount of math in my background and work in a technical field, but I cannot even use the book as a refresher to help my child. I have to pull out college text books or the internet to review concepts.
What is even worse is there is only one math path. My daughter who wants to major in journalism does not need calculus especally in the 10th grade. This math is a complete and utter failure drop it now before you mess up more children’s futures
theedge
May 21st, 2010
9:29 pm
Another thing I heard and I have not confirmed this, but I hear colleges are not sure if they are going to accept it as credit for trig or calculus and so on. If that is true the state o Georgia has really stepped in it.
Another Cobb Math parent
May 21st, 2010
9:48 pm
@mistake in the data:
I’m not a teacher but a sample of the websites of the first two North Fulton schools that popped into my head (Centennial and Northview) shows the following in the School Profile of both:
Grading Scale
A = 90–100
B = 80-89
C = 70-79
F = 69 or lower
The difference between this and the Cobb scale appears to be that Cobb breaks the 70-79 range into C and D, while Fulton doesn’t use D and instead calls any mark in the 70s a C. In both cases, 69 and below is an F.
I believe there is a mistake in the data!
May 21st, 2010
9:53 pm
Thanks, Another Cobb Math parent…
So if in fact 69 and below represents and F statewide, the data in the article is definitely under-reporting the failure rate.
ScienceTeacher671
May 21st, 2010
10:06 pm
@Another Cobb Math parent, that is the same grade scale our county uses, and so far as I know the other coastal counties use the same scale as well.
It would be interesting to know what the cut scores for the math EOCTs are….
john konop
May 21st, 2010
10:07 pm
Maureen,
Why did you avoid the point about Kathy Cox Lower the standard on the cut test for passing by 30%? As I said if you used the old cut test requirements 90% of kids fail is this not an issue?
@ theedge
May 21st, 2010
10:22 pm
Colleges have NEVER accepted HS credits for anything. Only exceptions are if students get 3 or better in AP courses. Colleges don’t care if students have taken trig or calculus in HS – unless they got a passing grade in AP Calculus test, they don’t get any credits. Moreover, moer colleges now require, or at least highly recommend, that students take the placement test to determine which math course students should start.
Public School Parent
May 21st, 2010
10:28 pm
I am very worried about what happens when the class of 2012 starts applying for college with transcripts that say Math II and Math III on them.
I would be interested in hearing more from the poster (Carlo?) who said they work in college admissions. Do they think competittive out of state schools will really treat Math III and Math IV the same as Trig and Calculus?
I went to a college fair this spring and tried to ask every out-of-state recruiter, especially those with engineering schools, if they were familiar with Georgia’s new high school curriculum. Most said students would be fine so long as they completed Algebra II, Pre-Calculus and either Calculus or AP Calculus. When I said we don’t have most of those courses any more they looked at me like I had two heads.
Leigh
May 21st, 2010
10:57 pm
All these students who do so well on the GHSGT and EOCT — they are curved and inflated. If you really want to know how your child did on an EOCT, ask for the raw score, which will give you the number correct and number of problems on the test. See what that grade comes up then! The GHSGT is a joke. A sixth grader can pass it. All we’ve done is lower the standards so that pompous parents can brag about how ’smart’ their little Johnny is.
anonymous
May 21st, 2010
11:07 pm
The new math curriculum is an experiment on the backs of our children. The National Math Advisory Panel was an inpartial group that reviewed the research on mathematics in order to make recommendations for schools across the country. In their report, which was published around 2 years ago, they stated that there are no studies that indicate that an integrated math curriculum is superior to a traditional math sequence or visa versa. It does beg the question why the Georgia DOE chose the radical step of implementing the unified math curriculum when there was no overwhelming evidence to suggest that the change would be worth it. Millions, if not billions, of dollars have been spent on transitioning to the new curriculum when you consider the new materials purchased, the daily rate of thousands of leaders and teachers who have participated in training, and the re-organization of school schedules to accomodate the math course and the support classes. Why did we do this if there wasn’t well-established research that showed that this investment would radically increase student achievement? Whenever a large-scale change is implemented, there is a dip in implementation while teachers and leaders learn the new approach. It takes a few years for the educational system to adjust to the change. Will we go through a multi-year dip in implementation and spend countless dollars to only get back to where we started with student achievement? In addition, Georgia is the only state in the country in which a unified curriculum is required for all students. A few other states offer unified curricula as an option, but not a requirement. Therefore, we embarked on this large-scale experiment without solid research and without any other states requiring the same. Unfortunately, our students will pay the price for this experiment.
Dekalbite @ Drew
May 21st, 2010
11:14 pm
“And it’s provocative in that it suggests that one race might be superior to another at certain tasks, which will get you a charge of racism from many. But the fact is its not about race at all…it’s about the culture (specifically, the language), and how something as basic as language can impact the understanding of mathematics. ”
Yes. It’s all about culture and also about geography. The book is written by Malcom Gladwell. I’ve read his other books “Tipping Point” and “Blink”, both great books, but “Outliers” his best in my opinion. His premise is that no one makes it to the to of their field on their own. Much is owed to timing, luck and having someone to help them. This book has so much to say about our desire to think merit always wins out, and if we see someone successful, they must have done it on their own. In particular parents of gifted kids and parents with children in sports will also enjoy “Outliers”.
As the end of the book, Malcom Gladwell, a Canandian, talks about his Jamaican mother who is of mixed race – black and white and her marriage to a Jewish European. He credits her lucky break to be educated in England that laid the foundation for his I saw an interview with him on the Daily Show the other night. He is such a unique thinker.
parents just dont understand
May 22nd, 2010
12:08 am
@DD
I am sorry for the late hour of my response, just returned from a dinner engagement.
I was hoping you would simply adjust where you had erred the first time in stating wrongfully about new and obscure. I can admit I have erred in thinking you had wit or intelligence.
This is fun : )
H.S teacher
May 22nd, 2010
12:35 am
Maureen,
I want to thank you for all the work you put into these wonderful articles and blogs, and providing us a voice on here. I am thankful to have this forum to vent, learn from others (whether I agree or not) , and to communicate with the community.
Bloggers: Please continue to be blunt, always tell us what is on your mind and do not be afraid of political correctness. Not everyone will agree with each other and that is wonderful! I do not want to live in a world where we all agree on one thing. (but a balance would be nice)
Educators: Support each other. Some are tired and frustrated, and some are content and happy. If you see someone in your building having a bad day, take the time to talk to them and hugs (as corny as this sounds) can have a positive impact.
In my own little corner of the world, I am starting to see “survival of the fittest” and “every man for himself” especially in this dark economy. We are all fragile and need to have hope for the future. Everything will be ok and you are appreciated!
rosie
May 22nd, 2010
6:20 am
Does anyone know very much about how the CRCT or EOCT test are scored? I don’t put much stock in our state developed test. Check out a score report and judge for yourself. On one of the EOCT math test a student earns a grade equivalent of 70, but only gets 32 % of the questions correct. Evidently, our state has really, really low cut scores. These low cut scores allow more students to pass the exam and allows for better reports to the press. How about a story on how many students actually got 50% or 70% of the questions correct on these state test?
john konop
May 22nd, 2010
6:56 am
Maureen,
Why has the AJC not reported about this?
Over the past few days, Georgia State School Superintendent Kathy Cox has spent considerable time on the airwaves touting the successes of Georgia high school juniors’ success on the science portion of the Georgia High School Graduation Test. “For the first time in history 90% of juniors passed the science portion of the GHSGT. That has been one of my goals since coming into office in 2003,” said Cox.
While these numbers may be reflective of numbers on this test, they are an inaccurate and inappropriate description of the reality. Give me a couple of minutes to explain to you what I see as a real problem with the current direction of education in Georgia. This direction is not coming from the local school districts; this direction is coming from the State Department of Education in Atlanta.
90% of juniors would not have passed the GHSGT in science had the State not lowered the cut score. The cut score is the number of questions that must be answered correctly in order to achieve a “passing” score on the test. These tests are not graded in the traditional manner of As and Bs and so forth.
In 2008, students had to answer 47 questions out of 70 (67%) correctly in order to pass the GHSGT science exam. In 2010, that number dropped to 34 correct responses out of 70 (48.5%). Well, that’s one way to raise pass rates, lower the standard for passing!
In fact, across the board in each content area, with the exception of social studies which was low to begin with, the Georgia Department of Education has lowered the standard to pass. See chart below:
Subject 2008 Cut Score 2010 Cut Score
English/Language Arts 34 correct responses out of 55 questions – 61.8%
31 correct responses out of 55 questions – 56.3%
Math 37 correct responses out of 65 questions — 57% 35 correct responses out of 65 questions – 53.8%
Science 47 correct responses out of 70 questions — 67% (GPS/QCC based)
34 correct responses out of 70 questions — 48.5%
Social Studies 39 correct responses out of 80 questions — 49% 40 correct responses out of 80 questions — 50%
Teacher&mom
May 22nd, 2010
8:08 am
@John Konop- check out the the new GHSGT changes for the 2011 science test…specifically Domain 3. At a glance it looks as if the state is watering down the requirements in that domain.
The Math II test was field tested last year in Algebra II classes. One has to wonder how the DOE was able to determine fair test questions by field testing the EOCT in an Algebra II class. Depending on the sequence of courses, some students would not have taken Geometry and/or Statistics.
Another Cobb Math parent
May 22nd, 2010
8:10 am
@Public School Parent
“I went to a college fair this spring and tried to ask every out-of-state recruiter, especially those with engineering schools, if they were familiar with Georgia’s new high school curriculum. Most said students would be fine so long as they completed Algebra II, Pre-Calculus and either Calculus or AP Calculus. When I said we don’t have most of those courses any more they looked at me like I had two heads.”
No wonder they thought you were confused. Of course we still have that content.
I’m going to be very interested and somewhat anxious to see how the class-of-2012 veterans of Accel Math III, my offspring included, make out next school year as juniors in AP Calculus. That will be one proof of the pudding.
I believe there is a mistake in the data!
May 22nd, 2010
9:05 am
@John Konop and Teacher & Mom…
Where can we see the cut score info and the Domain info that you cite? I am very interested in all of this.
I really think they need to go ahead and scrap these tests. Really what’s the point? I mean should we really base whether one is allowed to graduate on 55 questions (In the case of English)? The test results sound unreliable, and certainly they are costing the state a fortune. Again I ask what’s the point?
Northview (Ex)Teacher
May 22nd, 2010
9:05 am
This is what CCSD is paying $90K for:
“Once it reached capacity, the facilities manager said no more people could be allowed in,” Jay Dillon told the AJC Friday night.
In light of Maureen’s recent comments, I can see how someone who says such things is worth more than a fully qualified genetics or robotics teacher: such insight, such power of language, such amazing ability to get right to the heart of the matter. Indeed, CCSD is lucky to have someone of such calibre: not.
Fulton county is equally blessed to spend big bucks on one of Dillon’s proteges to provide spin for the evil Cindy Loe. Their PR person was on the radio this morning explaining why there is no more music program in elementary schools. She’s such a gem and worth every penny of her inflated salary: not
Meanwhile, teachers are being let go. These are people who made a difference, unlike PR types who are essentially corporate spokespeople.
Sharon Anderson, Fulton schools’ department chair for orchestra, lost her job as a result of the cuts. She was among 50 instrumental music teachers who were laid off.
“I was forced into retirement,” Anderson said. She had been with Fulton Schools for 33 years. Earlier this week 270 fourth- and fifth-graders played a goodbye tribute concert for her and the other band and orchestra directors.
I’m sure you all agree that we need PR much more than we need teachers. Superintendents and school boards certainly do. A school system is NOT a business, so why don’t we stop acting like it is?
For all you slow ones out there, let me repeat: a school system is NOT a business and should have no need for PR.
Attentive Parent
May 22nd, 2010
9:25 am
@ Rosie and John Konop-
Fordham documented Georgia’s unusually low cut scores in both its Proficiency Illusion and Accountability Illusion reports. I cited them and linked them on one of the threads last week.
Also Marcus Winters uses Georgia in a City Journal piece to illustrate states that have huge discrepancies between NAEP and what is considered proficient on the state test.
Tell me if you want any of these linked again although they come up easily with a search once you know they exist.
Apparently Georgia’s low cut scores are a scandal everywhere in education but within Georgia as the story is simply ignored here. A problem of being one of the few states with an elected state school super.
Apart from whether the tests are dumbed down, apparently the state considers questions to be invalid if too high a number of students get the question wrong during field testing.
So even the raw data is fudged.
Maybe large numbers missed because the subject was never taught properly or is not in the flawed textbooks the state has pushed or too many students lack the foundational skills in arithmetic.
As they game the numbers to make this math curriculum and instruction in other subjects and thus themselves look better, we are likely throwing out a lot of useful info as to what exactly is going wrong.
????
May 22nd, 2010
9:26 am
Northview ex teacher
I think you meant to post to another blog, but I’m interested in your quote from Jay Dillon…do you have a link to that article?
Ole Guy
May 22nd, 2010
9:44 am
A 28 (plus)% pass rate is not an alltogether bad indicator of the fact that this math curriculum IS achievable. What kind of doubletalk do we spew when we proclaim, on one hand, that kids have to be challenged in preparation for the future challenges which surely face them…only to complain that, in shamefully large numbers, they fail to meet that challenge.
Good, bad or indifferent…brain development and all the reasoning notwithstanding…lets hold these kids, the doers and shakers of the future, to the standards. The mysteries of trig, physics, and common sense 101 were just as mystifying to my gen as this new math is to the current crop…we, for the most part, met the challenge…so can they.
Teacher from somewhere else
May 22nd, 2010
10:31 am
Three points here. I teach science in DCSS and have some familiarity with the new math curriculum. First, many, many teachers do not understand the curriculum and don’t teach it wholeheartedly, but rather, with criticisms and caveats. Second, the math books make important errors which, unfortunately, some teachers just pass on because “that’s what the book says.” Third, ask your 9th grade student what he or she is studying in math: most will answer “I don’t know”, which is a sign to me that one of the most basic aspects of teaching, that of preparing students’ minds for what they will learn so they can put it into an intellectual context, is missing. Kids should know what they’re studying in math: it helps them organize their thinking.
DD
May 22nd, 2010
10:35 am
Attentive Parent,
Actually, I don’t think math is all about vocabulary – it’s about the concepts and relationships those words describe. Words must come later. One particular person seems not to recognize this and criticize the new math program because it contains “obscure” ideas like “incenter,” “orthocenter,” etc. However, the IDEAS represented by those words are not obscure, and her/him calling them obscure simply revealed her/his lack of mathematical understanding – which makes you wonder how good of a critique of a math program such a person can be.
You are also a very vocal critique of the new math program, but you seem to understand mathematics, and I doubt you would have made a similar ignorant criticism – which does more damage to the criticism than supporting it. Don’t you think?
so where to?
May 22nd, 2010
10:42 am
This is a fascinating discussion.
Some criticizes the new program has too much stuff, and others say they don’t contain enough. Some say they are too complex and other say they aren’t challenging enough.
Some argue that this approach isn’t “proven,” or even claims “disproven.” Yet what proof do we have that the traditional approach was working? Where does GA rank in the US? Where does US rank in the world in math? Why do we want to go back to the old system that brought us to where most people felt something has to change? If that’s not where we want to go, where exactly do people like john konop, attentive parent, etc. wants us to go? Just going back to Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II once again and expect some miraculous improvement seems to be irrational – wasn’t it Einstein who said something about such an expectation?
Northview (Ex)Teacher
May 22nd, 2010
10:54 am
Jay Dillon quote:
http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/some-forced-to-leave-532883.html
Veteran teacher, 2
May 22nd, 2010
10:57 am
@so where to? AND, everybody quotes dubious data to support their point of view. All data is stated as fact. For all the 30 years I have taught math some group has said what we are doing is “too hard,” and some group has said we need more rigor. Every time we raise the rigor we hear that “not everyone will be able to get it.” For those that are against Math 1-4, you are correct there need to be some changes in breadth of content and speed of delivery. For those for Math 1-4, I can tell you that my students come to me knowing more math and leave knowing more math than any other students I have encountered in my 30 years of teaching.
I can assure EVERYONE that the Algebra 1-Geometry-Algebra 2 sequence did NOT always work, either.
Attentive Parent
May 22nd, 2010
11:19 am
where to?-
It has been many years since Georgia pushed a traditional math and science curriculum even though the courses retained their traditional single subject names until this new math curricum. In the mid-1902 Georgia received a $10 million NSF grant to change its math and science instruction to an inquiry first approach. This set up GIMS- the Georgia Initiative in Math and Science and as part of it wrote the QCC Frameworks, the predecessor of today’s Instructional Frameworks.
The textbooks on the state’s approved list were thus discovery oriented and of generally poor instructional quality and school systems around the state have been led to believe that they must buy only the textbooks on the approved list. That’s not true but it may be the most unheralded material fact in Georgia education.
When Fordham reviewed the state math standards in 1998 the reviewer, Dr Ralph Raimi, commented the following on Georgia’s QCC math standards:
“lacks sufficient attention to Reason, overemphasizes the use of technology and carries the message in all courses that mathematics is preeminently for practical use”.
He further noted that Georgia’s standards “unfortunately avoids mention of the deductive structures of mathematics even in places where it would be natural”.
That makes sense though since the standards had to coexist with the QCC frameworks that were driving the textbooks being recommended and what the state was pushing for classroom curriculum.
Dr Raimi did not know that, however, because the state DOE didn’t provide the QCC frameworks to either the science or math Fordham reviewers as requested.
I cannot speak for Mr Konop but what I want is for the state and certain school districts to stop pushing a stealth curriculum through the Frameworks. They used the math content of the Standards and the 2005 Fordham review to gain political support for a new math curriculum. They then used these undiscussed and unexamined Instructional Frameworks as the basis for the classroom implementation and the EOCT and CRCT assessments.
That “bait and switch” has meant great confusion in this state over precisely what math children are to learn and how and what teachers are to teach. We want the state DOE to stop obfuscating what they are requiring and testing on so that it can be discussed openly in the sunlight as should be required by law.
Lee
May 22nd, 2010
11:32 am
Many years ago, when common sense was the norm in our schools, they realized there is a natural progression to things. They also knew that you must build a good foundation and mastery of the basics is the foundation.
That is why FIRST grade was the beginning of school. That is why they arranged classes in a certain sequence. That is why forty something years later, I can still visualize multiplication tables.
THAT was the system used to produce the scientists and engineers who put a man on the moon while using slide rules and “supercomputers” that are the equivalent to today’s handheld calculators.
Today, political correctness permeates our society like the plague. Politicians push unfunded mandates upon the schools while the educrats play games with “researched based” programs that cost billion$ and are abject failures.
And our schools graduate illiterates and we haven’t set foot on the moon since 1972.
Teacher&mom
May 22nd, 2010
12:56 pm
Here is a copy of the email that was sent out to districts:
System Testing Coordinators and Curriculum Directors:
The Science Content Descriptions for the Georgia High School Graduation Tests (GHSGT) have been updated for the Spring 2011 test. This document has been placed on the GHSGT Testing webpage in the ‘Content Descriptions’ portlet. These content descriptions will be applicable to Grade 11 first-time test takers in Spring 2011. This version of the Science GHSGT has been revised to address and reflect the graduation requirements of GaDOE State Board Rule 160-4-2-.48. As always, the document was developed with guidance, comments, and feedback from educators teach the content.
The GHSGT Science Content Descriptions for Spring 2011 reflect changes in Domain 3, Structures and Properties of Matter. Domain 3 now only includes fundamental concepts about atomic structure and properties of matter that students are exposed to in science courses included in the requirements of the 2008 graduation rule. These concepts are part of the foundation of science and recur in some manner in all courses of the Georgia science graduation requirements.
In the physics course, the understanding of atomic structure is fundamental to form a clear explanation of why some elements decay radioactively.
In the chemistry course, the understanding of atomic structure is necessary for the identification of substances based on chemical and physical properties or the prediction of formulas for stable ionic compounds.
In the earth systems course, the understanding of atomic structure is basic to the description of how the decay of radioactive isotopes is used to determine the age of rocks, Earth, and solar system.
In the environmental science course, the understanding of atomic structure is necessary to correctly describe the effects and potential implications of pollution and resource depletion on the environment at the local and global levels (e.g. air and water pollution, solid waste disposal, depletion of the stratospheric ozone, global warming, and land uses).
Assessment items on the GHSGT in Science for Domain 3 will be limited to the following foundational concepts:
Students describe atoms, understanding the structure of an atom in terms of:
atomic mass and atomic number
elements (atoms with different numbers of protons)
isotopes (atoms with different numbers of neutrons)
proton (positive charge), neutron (neutral), and electron (negative charge) locations
Students examine the phases of matter and the related atomic and molecular motion
Importantly, please note that the content weights for each domain have been adjusted to reflect the revisions.
The GPS 2011 version of the Science Content Descriptions, as well as previous versions, are located at the link below. Please review this document carefully and share it with your high school science teachers and building leadership teams.
http://www.gadoe.org/ci_testing.aspx?PageReq=CI_TESTING_GHSGT
Teacher&mom
May 22nd, 2010
1:01 pm
When I read the changes made to Science GHSGT, I laughed. They’ve basically watered down this domain to a middle school level science class…..but the science scores should rise and the DOE can pat itself on the back for “raising the bar”
ScienceTeacher671
May 22nd, 2010
1:36 pm
It’s amazing to me that the state lets students “pass” if they aren’t “proficient”….isn’t passing supposed to mean that you’re proficient?
worldrimroamer
May 22nd, 2010
1:39 pm
@TAZ: You wrote:
“Let’s be realistic. Why should we figure out trig values or lgoarithm using tables any more? We take advantage of tools we have commonly available.”
Oh for heaven’s sake, guy. I’m not talking about logarithm and trigonometric TABLES. That would be like advocating the use of abaci or slide rules in the classroom. Come on, insert your head into reality and take a sniff. I’m talking about understanding the rigorous mathematics underlying trigonometry and the natural and common logarithms, not 1945 log and trig tables. Jeez, why am I having to explain this to you?
You wrote:
“If you find it [the graphing calculator] difficult to use, well, that’s probably your age, not the tool.”
Your presumptuousness is quite amusing. It’s pathetic, really. It so happens that I have 18 years of professional experience with state-of-the-art scientific and financial computing, including NASA remote sensing, DOD massively parallel supercomputers, and Wall Street numerical analysis and computer simulation for derivative products. I would but you dollars to donuts that I understand computers better than you do. Having said that, I repeat: These super-calculators confuse the students. The students need to actually UNDERSTAND the mathematics that the calculators are doing for them. They are not understanding it, because they are not being taught it. And I believe that the calculators are actually a hindrance.
You wrote:
“Students don’t derive formulas? Please go read the Grade 5 math standards – students are expected to derive area formulas.”
I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. They plug numbers into area formulas. Do they derive the formula for the area of the circle of the ellipse? No, of course not — of course, the fifth grade is too early for those derivations, but they NEVER see the derivations anywhere through the 12th grade. You are talking nonsense. Do you understand what “derivation” means?
You say,
“They are never even presented with the analytical concepts underlying what the calculator is calculating for them,” but please go read the standards for Math 1. If they are not dealing with the concepts, well, maybe that’s teachers’ problem.”
Yes, I indeed said that they are not learning the analytical concepts underlying what the calculator is blindly doing for them, and I will say it again, slightly reworded. They are not learning very many of the analytical concepts. I have seen these text books, and I know first-hand what I’m talking about. Apparently you don’t even understand what I’m talking about.
worldrimroamer
May 22nd, 2010
2:16 pm
I posted this a half hour ago, and it never appeared. I’ll try one more time.
************************************************
TAZ wrote:
“Let’s be realistic. Why should we figure out trig values or logarithm using tables any more? We take advantage of tools we have commonly available.”
Come on, TAZ, raise your head and sniff reality. I wasn’t talking about logarithm and trigonometric TABLES. Nor was I advocating going back to abaci and slide rules, or carving runes into stone tablets. I was talking about understanding the rigorous mathematical concepts underlying trigonometric functions and the natural and common logarithms. Why do I have to explain this to you?
TAZ wrote:
“If you find it [the graphing calculators] difficult to use, well, that’s probably your age, not the tool.”
Your presumptuousness is pathetically amusing. It so happens that I have 18 years of professional computer-programming experience in science and Wall Street finance, including NASA remote sensing, DOD massively parallel supercomputers, and numerical analysis and computer simulation for derivative products. I have worked on many, many different machines. I think I might safely wager that I understand computers better than you do. And I will repeat what I said before: These graphing calculators confuse the heck out the students, and the students often do not understand what the calculator is actually doing – the underlying mathematics.
TAZ wrote:
“Students don’t derive formulas? Please go read the Grade 5 math standards – students are expected to derive area formulas.”
What do you mean by “derive formulas”? They do not derive area formulas. They plug numbers into already-derived formulas. I have not read the “Grade 5 math standards”, but I know what the kids are doing in their classes.
TAZ wrote:
“You say, ‘They are never even presented with the analytical concepts underlying what the calculator is calculating for them,’ but please go read the standards for Math 1″
Yes, I said that, and I’ll say it again in slightly different words. They are not being presented with many of the underlying analytical concepts. I have seen these textbooks and I have used these calculators, and I have taught these students, both in high school and at the college level. I am so disgusted with the educational bureaucracy that I don’t want to read their “math standards”. It’s all lip-service. I know what these kids are studying in the classroom because I’ve seen it. Do you understand what I’m talking about?
TAZ wrote:
“If they are not dealing with the concepts, well, maybe that’s teachers’ problem.”
You are absolutely right – partly right. But the textbooks and the curricula are also a huge part of the problem.
TAZ
May 22nd, 2010
2:35 pm
@ worldrimroamer,
You say the textbooks and the curricula are a part of the problem, but you admit you haven’t even read the standards. So, how can you distinguish the problems with the standards from the problems with teaching? I know teachers here would hate it, but I am putting the blame on teachers. Clearly the DOE and local districts must share the blame for the lack of professional development opportunities.