Math by any other name will still be harder than math of old
A teacher takes me and the paper to task for failing to note that no matter what it is called, math in Georgia reflects far more demanding standards and will never be the math of old. (AP Images.)
Among the many comments to me about math is this detailed note from a teacher alarmed over the amount of misinformation in this discussion.
He criticizes me and other AJC writers and protesting parents for failing to understand that the standards in Georgia’s math program form the basis of the new Common Core standards and they are not going away, not matter what we call the courses.
I appreciate two elements of his comment. He did his due diligence and he makes it accessible:
I have taught math in high school and college. I have taught methods classes and supervised student teachers as a college supervisor and as a classroom teacher. I have been an assistant principal and principal. Dozens of people have visited my classroom to observe my teaching.
The recent reporting done by the AJC on the “return” to traditional math in the state of Georgia is filled with inaccuracies and partial truths. In short, you and other AJC article writers are killing those of us that are in this to teach math every day. Instead of quoting people who clearly do not know what they are talking about, I would ask you to dig into the story and find out what is really going on.
If you and other AJC article writers persist in telling every one that schools in Georgia can “return” to Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, we are going to have so many problems with parents so that neither pathway of teaching will work. In an attempt to be helpful, I will give you a few hints from the inside so you can have the opportunity to right the ship.
There is no possibility of “return” to traditional math. Please read Mr. Barge’s statement very carefully. He said that school will have the option to use a traditional pathway or an integrated pathway to teach mathematics to maintain the rigor of the current GPS and upcoming Common Core standards. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE STANDARDS FOR THE TRADITIONAL PATHWAY OR THE INTEGRATED PATHWAY. The content is the same that we have now for Math 1, Math 2, and Math 3.
In fact, several people on the precision review team looked at the GPS and the Common Core and found that the only difference between the traditional pathway and the integrated pathway was that two algebra units from Math 2 would move to the 9th grade class, and two geometry units from Math 1 would move to the 10th grade class.
In other words about 80 percent of the content is the SAME. In either the integrated pathway or the traditional pathway, statistics is still INTEGRATED into each of the classes for the first three years of high school. THE ALGEBRA 1, GEOMETRY, AND ALGEBRA 2 CLASSES ARE NOT THE CLASSES THAT YOU AND I TOOK.
What has happened is that MANY people, obviously including the parent’s group that is quoted in every article about the “return” to traditional math, have only read the titles of the classes in the Common Core. If people would actually READ the Common Core curriculum, they would find out that there is almost NO DIFFERENCE between the current GPS and the Common Core high school standards. THEY HEAVILY USED THE CURRENT GEORGIA GPS TO WRITE THE NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL MATH COMMON CORE.
What Mr. Barge is offering is the possibility of calling the COMMON CORE classes Math 1, Math 2, and Math 3, or Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2. Again, the only difference is the interchange of two units in the first two courses. There is almost no difference between the current Math 3 and Algebra 2 as set in the Common Core. I am sure you are beginning to see the same thing that the non-political teachers are seeing across the state.
Saying that we are “fixing” the problems everyone is complaining about by moving to “traditional” math is disingenuous and will lead to an even higher level of discontent. I can only imagine the reaction of the parents group when they find out that there kids still have the same “hard” problems to work, but they are just in a slightly different order. We were told that there is no wiggle room with the Common Core curriculum.
Since Georgia has already agreed to join the other 44 states in the Common Core, we must do ALL OF THE CURRICULUM AT THE INTENDED GRADE LEVEL. Since Common Core is embedded with RTTT, no one can opt out of any part of the curriculum. Future standardized assessments will be matched to AYP and RTTT money.
Have you ever asked anyone from the parents group if they have actually read the curriculum for Math 1, 2, 3 or the Common Core Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2? We have a couple of locals in that group, and I assure you, they have not read anything but the titles of the courses. I would also encourage you to read the curriculum. Titles and descriptions mean nothing.
The actual problems with Math 1, 2, 3, other than the terrible implementation, of course, are twofold. One, there is too much content in each class to successfully master in one year, especially in the Accelerated classes. Two, each class requires mastery of 100% of the material from 100% of the content of each previous class. As you can see, problem 1 and problem 2 create a “catch-22″ situation for every teacher in the state.
Now, here is the catch…….BOTH OF THESE PROBLEMS WILL STILL BE IN PLACE WITH EITHER THE TRADITIONAL OR INTEGRATED PATHWAYS OF THE COMMON CORE. And, actually, the Common Core has even more content in most of the classes. Anyone who thinks that a traditional pathway for the SAME material will solve the problems being felt across the state is seriously misinformed or very inexperienced. Plus, it is still one size fits all. ALL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WILL BE ON THE SAME CURRICULUM FOR AT LEAST THE FIRST THREE HIGH SCHOOL COURSES.
There will still be little in the way of materials for the classes called Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, at least for next year. Many have told me that they were planning to pass out the old books they had in storage. A book called Algebra 1 will not be a good fit for the class called Algebra 1 in the Common Core. Ditto, Geometry and Algebra 2. Many schools around here are opting to continue with Math 1, 2, 3 for the next school year for that reason.
None of us want to have to scrape for materials in yet another configuration. I assume there will be materials available the fall of 2012, but there is a possibility that the publishers will not be ready by then. Besides, no one has extra money to get more math materials.
I began teaching algebra 1 and 2 in 1980. I am amused at the comments of the detractors of integrated math about the way the curriculum jumps around, there is not enough time to fully learn anything, the problems are too hard, etc. I have heard all of those same comments about algebra 1, algebra 2, and geometry classes as configured in what is obviously now seen as the “good old days.” I have taught thousands of students, and I have yet to have a student fail a class that always gave me his/her best effort. Most of the time complainers are the ones that do not put out, but they want the ultimate reward for actually little or no effort.
I could care less whether we have traditional or integrated curriculum. I can make either work. I think the “compromise” is a bad one. The very real problem of transfer in and out will only become worse if everyone can choose. I think the state should go one way or the other and stick to it. Regardless, I plan to teach math.
I hope I have given you enough background to successfully find the story and report what is going on accurately. I am confident you will find out that I am correct, but be forewarned that not many people are versed at all in the true curriculum of the Common Core, and in fact, the final version is yet to be released. I took an entire day to actually read all of the standards in the Common Core for Math 1-3 and for Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2.
By the way, Brad Findell was correct in his assessment of the EOCTs in Algebra 1, Geometry, Math 1, and Math 2. We have found the same thing true in our school. Our Math 1 scores are far better that our old Algebra 1 scores. The test for Math 1 is far more difficult than the Algebra 1 test. And the test for Math 2 is even beyond that. In fact, those tests and the new GHSGT are basically the same as the teacher certification test. I know that the detractors do not want to go there, but facts are facts.
Thanks for “listening” to me. I am passionate about teaching high school math, and I am very tired of all of the distractions of the past three years and of the distractions to come. Accurate reporting by the AJC will help, I believe.
–By Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
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
85 comments Add your comment
John Konop
March 15th, 2011
7:52 pm
Justin,
…. Typical konop. He knows HIS conclusion, and HIS conclusion only, is correct, so if anything doesn’t match his conclusion, well, “something doesn’t add up with your conclusion.” It’s never HIS conclusion that doesn’t add up. Of course, he knows. The AJC knows. Never mind the actual data…..
I know you are emotionally attached to math 123 like salesman pushing for a big commission on a bad deal. Obviously none of us truly know what your connection to the program is ie finically, job……. I am just a parent concerned about the issue with no financial attachment at all.
With all of that said please help us all understand how the statewide failure rate skyrocketed out of control and you would conclude Brad Findell study is valid for use in this debate? This time try chilling out on personal attacks and use facts with logic to make your point.
Article Author
March 15th, 2011
8:05 pm
So, John, just curious. What was the failure rate for Algebra 1 and Geometry when taught in the 9th and 10th grades, and how do those failure rates compare with what is quoted for Math 1 and Math 2. If you want to stick with facts, it looks like you would need that comparison to make your point. In our school, the failure rate for Math 1 is lower than it ever was for Algebra 1.
John Konop
March 15th, 2011
8:52 pm
It is very important to understand the failure rate increased by 20% in December from the spring. For this article Brad compares test scores from the spring when he claims more kids passed math 1 than algebra 1. And it seems he was interviewed about the spring failure rate increasing by 20% in December not spring results for this article.
Any rational person can see this is trending in the wrong direction and I am not sure how Brad “sees progress”. Also if you add in all the extra tutors parents hired and all the extra work schools did in tutoring kids falling behind relative to the students that took algebra 1, it is fairly clear for anyone who took a BASIC statistics class and research methods class would know this would not pass as 2 like control groups. I would hope Brad Findell, president of the Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics would understand this very basic concept.
FROM AJC
…. Of the 20,679 students who took the Math I final in December, 42.6 percent failed it. That’s a 19.6 percent increase from the spring, when 114,005 students took the exam and 35.6 percent did not meet expectations. Small gains were made in Math II in December, but they included the scores of students repeating the course after failing it the first time……
…Some educators say failure is expected under a new curriculum and isn’t a good reason to scrap it. When Algebra I final exam scores in spring 2008 are compared with Math I final exam scores in May 2010, more passed Math I, said Brad Findell, president of the Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics. “Going back to traditional when they are in the middle of implementation is going to create chaos in the schools that have made some changes,” he said. “Give these changes a chance to take hold. … I see this as progress.’’….
BTW it seems with a 20% Increase by December over may the failure rate is higher in Math 1 now sadly than algebra 1.
http://www.ajc.com/news/more-students-fail-integrated-867134.html
justin
March 15th, 2011
9:36 pm
@ Article Author,
Maybe you already know it, but it is COMPLETELY useless to engage in a discussion with john konop. He knows HE and ONLY HE is right, and has not way of understanding the real picture. He may claim he is only a concerned parent but he has no child who is going through the new program. He completely shrugs off any success story because they are just inconvenient for him. He is perfectly willing to accept any source that is in agreement with him, but everything else is just snake oil sales pitch.
He might accuse me of “emotionally attached to MATH I, II, III, and IV,” but he fails to see how emotionally he is attached to this imaginary “good old days” when Georgia was so successful in mathematics education. So, save your breath, rather rest your fingers.
John Konop
March 15th, 2011
9:56 pm
Justin,
Do you really not understand what a control group is in a study? If you understood basic math this has nothing to with picking and choosing sources or “snake oil pitch” it is something you should have learned in a basic class in college if you ever took research methods and statistics.
As far as the “good old days” I have been very clear what I advocate. The state should of adopted what Cherokee county did for gifted students and let them take algebra 1 in the 7th grade making them eligible for more APS math and science classes. The results yielded ten ranking in the nation at the time for gifted math students.
And for vocational students let the needed requirements come from the vocational/tech schools like they did in Macon for a district that showed tremendous improvement in drop out rates.
In my world I attempt to take the best ideas and spread them before making massive changes. And if I make changes I do them with a real QC standards and processes. Not like a blind and death bull on a mission to touch all the China in a shop like you guys did.
As I said before you would make a great salesman someday with your relentless energy. You just need to focus it in a positive direction.
justin
March 15th, 2011
10:18 pm
konop, tell me if you have any data from a controlled experiment that supported any of the ideas you are advocating. NONE. Now, a lot of decisions we make in our lives cannot be based on a controlled experiment, and sometimes past track record does matter – such as those you mentioned from Cherokee and Macon. But, they aren’t controlled experiments. Article Author’s district record seems to be just as valid as your favorite sources.
Mike Honcho Himself
March 15th, 2011
10:28 pm
@ John Konop,
I think you should take Justin’s suggestion and apply it to him. The people who developed our current curriculum wouldn’t listen to any dissenting opinions for the past five years and I don’t think they ever will.
new teacha
March 15th, 2011
11:08 pm
Great article by the math teacher. I’m a first year student teacher and their is very little in the way of support and alot in the way of blame. Unprepared students who are undisciplined will have a difficult time of it. Concerned teachers often get no support. Parents blame teachers, teachers blame parents, admin blame faculty, thhe state blames the county. I love this new job
John Konop
March 16th, 2011
8:38 am
….konop, tell me if you have any data from a controlled experiment that supported any of the ideas you are advocating. NONE. Now, a lot of decisions we make in our lives cannot be based on a controlled experiment, and sometimes past track record does matter – such as those you mentioned from Cherokee and Macon. But, they aren’t controlled experiments……
Brad Findell even admits you are wrong and I am right. My point is simple the reason large discloser statements are important is because people misuse studies like this sometimes even in a manipulative manner. And Brad knows from taking research methods that is why major disclosures are key when you have major problems with a study ie like not having comparable control groups.
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/03/02/real-math-story-students-passing-end-of-course-tests-rose-from-2008-to-2010/?cp=2
From Brad:
…..Regarding the question of whether students are learning more mathematics through these GPS courses, I claimed absolutely nothing in the original post. To answer such questions with empirical validity, an ideal study would involve common measures given to the same or comparable populations…..
….. Article Author’s district record seems to be just as valid as your favorite sources……
No rational person would suggest the successful results in Macon and Cherokee even compare to what happen in her district. We are talking about a substantial improvement in drop-out rates way above state average and the gifted math program in Cherokee ranked in the top ten in the nation. I read nothing that makes claims even close to that from the article and or comments.
John Konop
March 16th, 2011
9:16 am
So everybody understands let me show you an analogy.
New drug pill: Study shows improvement of weight loss over group that did not take the pill.
One would assume by taking the pill you would have a good chance of loosing weight.
Yet what was not disclosed in the release is the person doing the study when asked about it…claimed absolutely nothing in the original post. To answer such questions with empirical validity, an ideal study would involve common measures given to the same or comparable populations…..
For instance the study did not measure if one group did more exercise and ate healthier than the other group, and yet knowing the above issues they kept selling the pills with the same claims.
Do you not see the problem?
2 cents
March 16th, 2011
9:18 am
and remember the cut score for passing the Math I, II,…. EOCT has been lowered several times
Jackie T.
March 16th, 2011
9:25 am
Mr. Konop,
You said, “No rational person would suggest the successful results in Macon and Cherokee even compare to what happen in her district.” I agree to the degree in that the experience the author of the article is discussing does not (I don’t think) involve gifted students (Cherokee) or the vocational track students (Macon). So, these three cases are dealing with very different populations, and as a result they are not comparable. Of course, that means none of these situations does not invalidate other experiences, either. In other words, Justin’s point that the author’s experience is just as valid seems to be ok. Am I wrong?
Jackie T.
March 16th, 2011
9:26 am
@ 2 cents,
I heard this claim made several times, but no one seems to actually show us what the cut scores were and how they were changed. Do you have the data, or are you just repeating someone else’s claim with no way to verify it?
John Konop
March 16th, 2011
11:07 am
Jackie T,
… Justin’s point that the author’s experience is just as valid seems to be ok. Am I wrong?…
Yes but the results in Cherokee and Macon were obviously much more dramatic and not comparable for the obvious reasons you stated relative via unlike control groups. I do not think the author is claiming the massive success we saw in Macon and Cherokee.
The final point on a statewide basis it obvious the scalability of the concept was NOT well thought out before implementation or even does not seem viable from the results on a macro as well operational issues like the transfer in and out state has not been solved.And now it seems like we now have the issue now in the state.
John Konop
March 16th, 2011
11:08 am
Mike Honcho Himself,
The truth is always better than fiction! LOL
Jackie T.
March 16th, 2011
11:19 am
Mr. Konop,
You seem to be on a really slippery slope when you say “obviously much more dramatic” since you are indeed comparing these results.
I also agree with you that ” the author is claiming the massive success,” but at the same time his experience in his system seems to show that the new math program hasn’t been a failure in every district of the state. Doesn’t it make sense to figure out what is going on here? What makes those districts that are more successful than others? Could others learn from those more successful districts? Wouldn’t that provide a better mathematics experiences for a larger number of Georgia students?
I think we should address how to deal with extremely gifted students and the need for vocational tracks as separate issues. These are EXTREMELY important issues, but I’m afraid when they get bundled together with the math curriculum issue, they might get lost – in other words, some people may get a false idea that the “solution” to the math curriculum issue is the solution for these issues. That assumption might not be true.
Jackie T.
March 16th, 2011
11:51 am
Oops. “the author is (NOT) claiming the massive success.”
Toto: Exposing naked body scanners...
March 16th, 2011
1:18 pm
Wow. I’m so glad I home school.
“Our middles school math students do multiplication as follows: 5 x 9 = ? Take a pencil and make 9 groups of 5 individual dots. Count all the dots. ”
Now that’s SCARY. My 10 year old read that comment and laughed. Our traditional math curriculum emphasizes mastery of facts, mental math, and speed. He is now working on prime factoring, triple digit long division, decimals, and +,-, division, and x of fractions. He can also reduce fractions by factoring and cancellation. My child does not naturally like math, nor does he easily memorize facts; however, we drill, drill, drill, and he gets better and better. It is the key to higher math. He does have a natural bent towards geometry and art. He has mastered origami and enjoys creating polygons and dodecahedrons out of paper. He completed an origami geometry notebook at the age of 8.
AJinCobb
March 16th, 2011
1:55 pm
@Toto,
You’re being very naive if you actually believe that all or even many middle school math students multiply by counting. It may make you feel good about home schooling, but there’s little value in taking heart from false information.
When my child (class of 2012, integrated math curriculum since 6th grade) was in middle school, they had brief timed tests of math facts at least once a week, even in 8th grade. The students had all learned math facts in elementary school, but the middle school teachers were well aware that nobody can do algebra without mastery of basic arithmetic, and that drills are the best way to cement this. There was an incentive chart in the classroom with stars for every perfect score on the timed tests.
My child and classmates are now doing well in AP Calculus, in their junior year. It seems clear from blog posts that either people are making up wild stuff, or that there are serious problems in some schools in the state. It’s probably the latter. However, in East Cobb, students are learning math properly, in the public schools.
Toto: Exposing naked body scanners...
March 16th, 2011
2:32 pm
@AjinCobb
I think if your child is in gifted/acellerated programs, they do OK. Others…….
BTW, One of mine will be taking BC Calc in 10th grade. My hs curric. prepared him well.
John Konop
March 16th, 2011
6:08 pm
Jackie T,
……new math program hasn’t been a failure in every district of the state. Doesn’t it make sense to figure out what is going on here? What makes those districts that are more successful than others? Could others learn from those more successful districts? Wouldn’t that provide a better mathematics experiences for a larger number of Georgia students?…….
In all due respect basic quality control protocol should be the first focus on fixing basic operational issues. And unless we can fix the below issues I cannot see how we continue this failed not will thought out experiment.
1) How do handle students transferring in and out of state since it matches nothing
2) How could we implement a vocational/tech track via joint enrollment as early as junior high school since once again it doe not track with vocational/tech schools today
3) How can we afford to train people effectively within the budget current limited budget when we obviously do not even have a real seriously thought-out solution
4) How much time and resources are we spending on fishing for solutions when we could be using other ideas with a proven track record like what was done in Macon and Cherokee.
I could go on and on….but I am sure you get the point that any project needs real stress testing, open dialogue, processes, training………Not blindly ignoring obvious problems.
…..I think we should address how to deal with extremely gifted students and the need for vocational tracks as separate issues…..
The issue does have overlapping problems we must understand. For instance a Harvard study recommends starting vocational training in junior high school. Obviously the must cost effective as well as matching students with best instructors is to use the current vocational/tech system in place via joint enrolment. Once again math 123 does not match the system they use at the vocational/tech schools now. Also if we have use online education out of Georgia than we are really out of luck with an odd ball math program.
ScienceTeacher671
March 16th, 2011
8:17 pm
There’s probably an inverse relationship between problems with the math curriculum and socioeconomic level.
www.honeyfern.org
March 17th, 2011
7:08 am
Reading this has been interesting and enlightening.
I am curious about one point: many of you say that there isn’t much difference (if any) in the math standards between “traditional” math and Math 1, 2, etc, but then a few posts later someone claims better results with Math 1 (or “traditional” math). If the standards are the same, what is different? I know the argument is that the maths are more integrated (stats for 3 years, geometry, alg, etc put together), but if they are aligned to the CC for each grade, how much different are they really?
And BTW, I just enrolled a student who doesn’t consider herself a “math person.” She said that Math 1 was very, very confusing for her and that she preferred the traditional approach. Although I generally don’t prefer curriculum that is compartmentalized, I do understand where she is coming from.
That’s just an anecdote. Not empirical evidence. Not trying to change anyone’s mind, just adding one student’s opinion.
justin
March 17th, 2011
7:24 am
I see that konop is back on his favorite soapbox.
“1) How do handle students transferring in and out of state since it matches nothing”
Well, our state board made the situation worse by letting each district pick their math packages. Isn’t it amazing?
“2) How could we implement a vocational/tech track via joint enrollment as early as junior high school since once again it doe not track with vocational/tech schools today”
Such a system did not exist before nor has anything to do with the math curriculum.
“3) How can we afford to train people effectively within the budget current limited budget when we obviously do not even have a real seriously thought-out solution”
A good question, for a change. Somehow konop only remembers “exemplary” programs but for the rest of the state, our math program wasn’t doing much. The underlying issue is how to provide the training math teachers need to teach it more effectively – no matter what packaging we use. Without answering that, quality control or not, packaging doesn’t matter.
“4) How much time and resources are we spending on fishing for solutions when we could be using other ideas with a proven track record like what was done in Macon and Cherokee.”
What do you propose to do for “average” college prep students? The Macon program was a vocational program – if I understand you correctly – and the Cherokee program was for extremely gifted students. That leaves a very large portion of our students., doesn’t it? Do we say they are just on their own?
“Not blindly ignoring obvious problems.” The obvious problem in GA has been that our students were not doing well in mathematics. No???
“Once again math 123 does not match the system they use at the vocational/tech schools now.”
Enlighten us. What math do students need to go to vocational/tech schools that are NOT included in the new program? Please, name some. You have been avoiding these specific questions and keep on preaching on a grand idea with no details – I suppose what’s what we should expect from a politician wanna be.
justin
March 17th, 2011
9:50 am
@ honeyfern,
Your case doesn’t even make an anecdotal evidence. A student who is struggling says she preferred another approach. In order for this to count as an anecdotal evidence for the traditional approach, we need to know she does well in the traditional course. She may do better, she might do about the same. She might even do worse than she is in Math 1.
justin
March 17th, 2011
9:52 am
@ honeyfern,
So, if the standards are the same and more students are succeeding in one program than the other, doesn’t that make the program a better at achieving the standards? The same goal, but one approach is being more successful at getting the results. What’s so difficult about that?
KCS
March 17th, 2011
10:31 am
“I could care less whether we have traditional or integrated curriculum. I can make either work.”
As a parent I share this thought as well, as long as teachers can make it work. I believe that the real issue is not the sequencing or objections to the rigor, but the instructional practices and the lack of quality support material offered to students. We have experienced the following problems: 1) teacher led instruction is often completely abandoned in favor of students teaching students 2) If any teacher instruction is given at all, only one explanation and one method of working a problem is given or allowed 3) handouts covering an actually simple concept are made absurdly complex because they are written so poorly that students must sift through pages to determine what the writer meant to say. If we can train all of our teachers to adjust instruction to meet the needs of individual students and we can see tangible proof that students are learning then I don’t care what you call it or when you offer it.
Jackie T.
March 17th, 2011
10:47 am
Mr. Konop,
You say, “In all due respect basic quality control protocol should be the first focus on fixing basic operational issues,” and you are probably correct. However, how do you plan to handle the situation where the options are either what was broken (except for the two programs you mentioned) and what is broken? Although I understand the transfer students across state lines is a problem, I’m not sure how to balance “local control” of education and interstate transfer issue. In order to eliminate the issues with interstate transfer, don’t we need a national curriculum?
I still don’t see why we cannot create a vocational option with the current Math 1, 2, 3, & 4 as the basic structure for the college prep students. Most (all?) districts allow accellaration within this system so that students can take AP Calculus as early as in Grade 11 – AP State could be taken in Grade 10 after completing Accelerated Math 2.
I’m also concerned about our past record with a tracking system. The tracking system we used to have wasn’t really a true tracking – minority students were often tracked into the low-level track with no future possibility. How do we avoid such an abuse of the system?
I share your concern about the lack of resources to prepare teachers to deal with the problems we face. As I said above, the system as a whole, was not doing well – we might have had some local excellences here and there, but overall, our students’ achievements were significantly below where we would like them to be. The issue is huge, and I just can’t see any single solution for this issue.
www.honeyfern.org
March 17th, 2011
11:23 am
@ Justin, not sure why you have such an aggressive tone to your post. I was sincerely asking a question about the supposed differences were between the two. And is there any evidence that one is better than the other? Definitive evidence? Or do students do better on one because the cut scores were lowered?
John Konop
March 17th, 2011
7:27 pm
Justin,
“2) How could we implement a vocational/tech track via joint enrollment as early as junior high school since once again it doe not track with vocational/tech schools today”
…Such a system did not exist before nor has anything to do with the math curriculum…..
A system was in place called joint enrollment and it easily could be adapted for vocational/tech education as the district in Macon did very successfully. And with Math 123 it does not correlate with the current classes taught at the vocational/tech schools.
…..“Once again math 123 does not match the system they use at the vocational/tech schools now.”
Enlighten us. What math do students need to go to vocational/tech schools that are NOT included in the new program? Please, name some. You have been avoiding these specific questions and keep on preaching on a grand idea with no details – I suppose what’s what we should expect from a politician wanna be…..
First I am a businessman not a politician. And unlike you I am not part of the system making money off education.
As far as what math is needed this is a very strange question coming from someone in the education system. Obviously it all depends on what degree or certificate a student is required to take for graduation. And this is rather wide range.
BTW the concept behind the Macon program was not just vocational. The concept was matching students to a proper track and aptitude faster like they do in Europe. The idea is the students see the practical application of education faster ie driving interest up and drop-out rate down no matter what track.
That is why the Cherokee program was so successful in my opinion and needed to be expanded like they did in Macon over voodoo solutions you and Kathy Cox advocate.
John Konop
March 17th, 2011
7:29 pm
http://www.honeyfern.org ,
Justin had been avoiding the cut score question on this blog for a long time. Gee I wonder why?
justin
March 17th, 2011
8:02 pm
“First I am a businessman not a politician. ” I guess you are a business man who wanted to be a politician but failed…
“Obviously it all depends on what degree or certificate a student is required to take for graduation. And this is rather wide range. ”
Again, what makes you think that the old QCC was any better? You just keep avoiding answering because you can’t even think of a SINGLE topic that support your claim.
“The concept was matching students to a proper track and aptitude faster like they do in Europe.”
Great. We will have more high-stake testing. What makes you think that such a testing would be any different than the current high-stake tests?
John Konop
March 17th, 2011
8:25 pm
Justin,
…. Again, what makes you think that the old QCC was any better? You just keep avoiding answering because you can’t even think of a SINGLE topic that support your claim…..
Do you understand the idea is for the student to take the class at the vocational/tech school like we do with joint enrollment today not at the high school or junior high.
…..“The concept was matching students to a proper track and aptitude faster like they do in Europe.”
Great. We will have more high-stake testing. What makes you think that such a testing would be any different than the current high-stake tests?…
HUH? All they do is let the student track to the best options open to them based on how they do in school. In most cases the students would self-select based on how they are doing in school based on their aptitude.
If student wants to take a different path latter we always have junior colleges….which you can take requirements needed for a different path in life. Believe it or not I know CIO who started at tech school and gained education along the way before he became the CIO.
As far as your personal attacks about when I ran for office it does not change any of the facts in the above debate. And like this issue I ran on warning people about over leverage issue private and public while the economy was booming. Like with this issue when I warned pre-implementation that you guys had a poorly thought-out plan it was not a popular position. The truth does not make you popular. Yet in business and being a parent you learn making tough calls does not make you popular but it is easier to hold your head up and plan appropriately.
Think about it!
justin
March 18th, 2011
6:30 am
“Do you understand the idea is for the student to take the class at the vocational/tech school like we do with joint enrollment today not at the high school or junior high.”
Well, I do understand that part, but I thought we are discussing the math program at HS. Once students enter a joint enrollment program, then they take the classes offered by colleges/technical schools. That’s a separate issue.
“HUH? All they do is let the student track to the best options open to them based on how they do in school.”
I knew you were clueless, but this shows your ignorance. Do you think students in Europe simply picks which path they want to go? Don’t you know that their path is dictated by how well they do on certain tests?
“Think about it!”
Please DO.
John Konop
March 18th, 2011
7:49 am
Justin,
…..“Do you understand the idea is for the student to take the class at the vocational/tech school like we do with joint enrollment today not at the high school or junior high.”
Well, I do understand that part, but I thought we are discussing the math program at HS. Once students enter a joint enrollment program, then they take the classes offered by colleges/technical schools. That’s a separate issue…..
No it is not if we expand the joint enrollment for vocational students starting as early as 7th grade like recommended by the Harvard study. Than the student could take the math that are need at the vocational/tech school starting as early as 7th grade depending on requirements. For instance a student may only need algebra 1 for their degree.
….HUH? All they do is let the student track to the best options open to them based on how they do in school.”
I knew you were clueless, but this shows your ignorance. Do you think students in Europe simply picks which path they want to go? Don’t you know that their path is dictated by how well they do on certain tests?…
Once again you heed to deal with your anger issues if you want to be successful in life. Obviously based on what subject you excel in and subjects you do not has always been a determination as to the best path you take in life. That was true until the No Child Left Behind gang like you pushed the one size fit all path down our throats. That elitist approach toward education is one of the factors making the problem worse.