President of American Mathematical Society's letter to the school board
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Wen Shen
May 11, 2009, 10:41:16 PM5/11/09
to parents-for-quali...@googlegroups.com
Dear all,
Attached please find the letter from George Andrews,
the President of American Mathematical Society,
Evan Pugh Professor of Mathematics at Penn State,
to the board of our school district,
urging a change in the math program.
Thanks to President Andrews for taking time
for this important matter. I thank him for giving me
permission to post his letter.
Wen Shen, PhD.
Rodger Smith
May 11, 2009, 11:00:10 PM5/11/09
to parents-for-quali...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,
I am impressed with the calibre of professionals who are weighing in on this important topic - Children's mathematics. I read Dr. Andrew's letter and can sympathize with the state of mathematics instruction in our schools and how it must look to an end user like a University.
I'm not sure how accurate a statistic it is (it came without footnotes or a reference at the end of the chapter) but the college text that I use with the MathEd 420 course at Penn State says this, "Traditional books currently account for well over 80 percent of the textbooks used in schools." Elementary and Middle School Mathematics - Teaching Developmentally by John A. Van De Walle, sixth edition, page 8. If true, then a traditional approach to elementary mathematics must accept, in part, some of the blame for the sad state of affairs of teaching math in our elementary schools.
I want to caution against returning to a philosophy or system that would take away from the quote that Oak Norton shared with me, "We are not teaching math, we are teaching thinking through the medium of math."
My experience with teaching thinking through the medium of math with young children means that it can be messy and time consuming. To be honest my experiences using my new ideas is only with on-grade level students. I do not teach the mathematically talented 5th graders at my school. But I'm really worried that the math wars may bring us right back to where we started when the first version of the NCTM standards was published. From my understanding, the standards were a response to the poor international showing of American students. The reform curricula do have some merit with their focus on problem solving and thinking.
I'm reminded of an African proverb that I heard when I was a third grade teacher and our social studies unit was Africa. "When the elephants fight, the grass get trampled." I hope that we are not now so engaged in "winning the argument" that we overlook the possible consequences such a fight might have.
thanks,
Rodger
<LetterAndrew.pdf>
Oak Norton
May 12, 2009, 12:53:49 AM5/12/09
to Parents for Quality Math Education
Rodger, I think if you'll "investigate" Singapore math you'll find
lots to like about it. It has what I believe are the best problems in
the world. I have found that reform math programs make a lot of
claims that are not justifiable. They claim to be great for problem
solving and yet give children the simplest of problems to solve.
Contrast that to Singapore problems which are multi-step and that's
where real thinking skills get used. Children have to think about how
to get one part solved and how to use it in another part. Check out
slide 14 of this presentation to see a great 4th/5th grade Singapore
math problem and ask yourself how many American students could do it.
http://www.utahsmathfuture.com/docs/Utahs_Math_Future.pps
Oak
P.S. I would also note that "traditional" math has become an oddly
used word. To some it means a return to basics and to others a
disaster that has occurred over the last few decades. I would suggest
that the disaster came by book publishers eager to push their wares on
districts, failed to develop a logical progression of topics at
appropriate levels to stimulate children's minds. Children don't need
coddled, they need expanded. The only way to do that is with difficult
and challenging problems such as Singapore and a handful of other
programs can do.
lots to like about it. It has what I believe are the best problems in
the world. I have found that reform math programs make a lot of
claims that are not justifiable. They claim to be great for problem
solving and yet give children the simplest of problems to solve.
Contrast that to Singapore problems which are multi-step and that's
where real thinking skills get used. Children have to think about how
to get one part solved and how to use it in another part. Check out
slide 14 of this presentation to see a great 4th/5th grade Singapore
math problem and ask yourself how many American students could do it.
http://www.utahsmathfuture.com/docs/Utahs_Math_Future.pps
Oak
P.S. I would also note that "traditional" math has become an oddly
used word. To some it means a return to basics and to others a
disaster that has occurred over the last few decades. I would suggest
that the disaster came by book publishers eager to push their wares on
districts, failed to develop a logical progression of topics at
appropriate levels to stimulate children's minds. Children don't need
coddled, they need expanded. The only way to do that is with difficult
and challenging problems such as Singapore and a handful of other
programs can do.
Wen
May 12, 2009, 1:37:29 PM5/12/09
to Parents for Quality Math Education
Dear Rodger,
Professor George Andrews has all my respect for taking his time
to share his opinion with us.
This is not about "elephants and grass".
It is simply a person with vast math knowledge and experience
sharing his concerns, from his point of view.
We still need math professors, physics professors etc in the future.
I am not sure what you mean by "possible consequences of such a
fight".
Over 500 signatures on the petition clearly shows that there is a big
problem in the math program.
We want a math program that works for our kids.
What should these parents do?
I also wish that there was another way to solve this problem.
I have my kids in Radio Park. I have heard great things about you.
I respect you as a great teacher and a great person.
I have books of Singapore Math for 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th grade.
(I lend the 4th books to a friend.)
I will be more than happy to show you these books.
I am sure you will like them. Anyone who likes math will like these
books.
Thank you.
Wen
Professor George Andrews has all my respect for taking his time
to share his opinion with us.
This is not about "elephants and grass".
It is simply a person with vast math knowledge and experience
sharing his concerns, from his point of view.
We still need math professors, physics professors etc in the future.
I am not sure what you mean by "possible consequences of such a
fight".
Over 500 signatures on the petition clearly shows that there is a big
problem in the math program.
We want a math program that works for our kids.
What should these parents do?
I also wish that there was another way to solve this problem.
I have my kids in Radio Park. I have heard great things about you.
I respect you as a great teacher and a great person.
I have books of Singapore Math for 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th grade.
(I lend the 4th books to a friend.)
I will be more than happy to show you these books.
I am sure you will like them. Anyone who likes math will like these
books.
Thank you.
Wen
Rodger Smith
May 12, 2009, 9:17:11 PM5/12/09
to parents-for-quali...@googlegroups.com
Dear Wen,
I too respect the knowledge and expertise of Dr. Andrews. The
elephants I was talking about were the two sides in the conflict. I
realize that Investigations needs to be adapted to the state
standards and I feel the elementary math staff has tried to address
those concerns. I'm just concerned that the strives we have made as
a staff in using problem solving as a basis for our curriculum might
go away with a change in the materials. I am presently looking at
the other alternatives suggested by the opponents of Investigations.
So far I have not been alarmed by the Singapore materials, but I
would still like to see a teacher's guide. I'm trying to sort this
out and any help is welcome. Barb shared her fifth grade books with
me, but we were at the end of our meeting and I didn't really get a
good chance to see them. This was no one's fault, it's just that we
ran out of time. I would be happy to meet with you and look over the
fifth grade books. Do you have a teacher's edition? The Singapore
site seems to have a few different series of books and since I'm new
at this I cannot really tell which series we are talking about. Most
things take time and the discussions back and forth have been
useful. Again, I was not trying to be disrespectful to Dr. Andrews.
My African proverb may not have been the best choice for an analogy.
Please email me with some dates that work for you and I'll look over
my schedule for the rest of this week and next.
thanks,
Rodger
I too respect the knowledge and expertise of Dr. Andrews. The
elephants I was talking about were the two sides in the conflict. I
realize that Investigations needs to be adapted to the state
standards and I feel the elementary math staff has tried to address
those concerns. I'm just concerned that the strives we have made as
a staff in using problem solving as a basis for our curriculum might
go away with a change in the materials. I am presently looking at
the other alternatives suggested by the opponents of Investigations.
So far I have not been alarmed by the Singapore materials, but I
would still like to see a teacher's guide. I'm trying to sort this
out and any help is welcome. Barb shared her fifth grade books with
me, but we were at the end of our meeting and I didn't really get a
good chance to see them. This was no one's fault, it's just that we
ran out of time. I would be happy to meet with you and look over the
fifth grade books. Do you have a teacher's edition? The Singapore
site seems to have a few different series of books and since I'm new
at this I cannot really tell which series we are talking about. Most
things take time and the discussions back and forth have been
useful. Again, I was not trying to be disrespectful to Dr. Andrews.
My African proverb may not have been the best choice for an analogy.
Please email me with some dates that work for you and I'll look over
my schedule for the rest of this week and next.
thanks,
Rodger
Wen
May 12, 2009, 9:57:01 PM5/12/09
to Parents for Quality Math Education
Dear Rodger,
I bought a set of US ED of Primary Mathematics from 2 to 6 grade.
I didn't get the STD ED, because then my 5th grade daughter would need
to
go further back (2 years behind) and I would feel more depressed.
These 6 years US ED covers the normal 5 year STD ED used in Singapore.
For my 5th grader, she had to go back to 4th grade books to make up
for some basic skill before she moved on to 5th grade book.
Now she is on 6B. I am very proud of her.
Unfortunately I lend the 4th grade books to a friend. (After being on
the CDT,
many people have asked me to look at those books:)).
I could bring the rest. I have the textbooks and workbooks.
The textbooks explain the topics with
examples, and the workbooks are full of related exercises.
I didn't get the teacher's manual. I figured being a math professor I
could do that part by myself. :)
In fact, the textbooks are so clearly written,
my daughters rarely need my help. They simply read the textbook by
themselves, and then they do the exercises. They love these books!
The teacher's manuals are available online, and are not expensive at
all.
I have no teaching this week, so basically anytime will be fine to
meet.
Do you want to meet after school, evening or lunch time?
After school I will be more busy with kids activities.
Please email me separately on the time and place to meet.
she...@math.psu.edu.
Wen
I bought a set of US ED of Primary Mathematics from 2 to 6 grade.
I didn't get the STD ED, because then my 5th grade daughter would need
to
go further back (2 years behind) and I would feel more depressed.
These 6 years US ED covers the normal 5 year STD ED used in Singapore.
For my 5th grader, she had to go back to 4th grade books to make up
for some basic skill before she moved on to 5th grade book.
Now she is on 6B. I am very proud of her.
Unfortunately I lend the 4th grade books to a friend. (After being on
the CDT,
many people have asked me to look at those books:)).
I could bring the rest. I have the textbooks and workbooks.
The textbooks explain the topics with
examples, and the workbooks are full of related exercises.
I didn't get the teacher's manual. I figured being a math professor I
could do that part by myself. :)
In fact, the textbooks are so clearly written,
my daughters rarely need my help. They simply read the textbook by
themselves, and then they do the exercises. They love these books!
The teacher's manuals are available online, and are not expensive at
all.
I have no teaching this week, so basically anytime will be fine to
meet.
Do you want to meet after school, evening or lunch time?
After school I will be more busy with kids activities.
Please email me separately on the time and place to meet.
she...@math.psu.edu.
Wen
Rodger Smith
May 12, 2009, 10:05:11 PM5/12/09
to parents-for-quali...@googlegroups.com
Dear Wen,
I will forward your note to my school email and look over my
schedule tomorrow. Thanks for being willing to meet with me and
share materials.
Rodger
I will forward your note to my school email and look over my
schedule tomorrow. Thanks for being willing to meet with me and
share materials.
Rodger
Rodger Smith
May 13, 2009, 6:49:26 AM5/13/09
to parents-for-quali...@googlegroups.com
Oak,
Thanks for the slide show. It helps me to get a more complete
picture of Singapore math and the position of those who advocate its
use. The math problem is impressive. When I get a chance I'm going
to try to work it out for myself.
I also realize that traditional math is used to represent many
different ideas. That's what's tough about this medium. Many times
there is a misunderstanding about what is being said exactly.
Book publishers have been given too much reign to determine what we
present as mathematics to our children. They also try to sell to as
wide a population as they can and so that's the reason for all the
bells and whistles in the books. I also agree that our children are
more capable that some publishers would lead us to believe. It is
okay for them to struggle with ideas. I don't want tears and
frustration in my room, but a good, challenging problem and
discussion can really be rewarding. It really brings a smile to my
face when children stay after class to discuss mathematical ideas
with me or other students. It doesn't happen nearly often enough.
Rodger
Thanks for the slide show. It helps me to get a more complete
picture of Singapore math and the position of those who advocate its
use. The math problem is impressive. When I get a chance I'm going
to try to work it out for myself.
I also realize that traditional math is used to represent many
different ideas. That's what's tough about this medium. Many times
there is a misunderstanding about what is being said exactly.
Book publishers have been given too much reign to determine what we
present as mathematics to our children. They also try to sell to as
wide a population as they can and so that's the reason for all the
bells and whistles in the books. I also agree that our children are
more capable that some publishers would lead us to believe. It is
okay for them to struggle with ideas. I don't want tears and
frustration in my room, but a good, challenging problem and
discussion can really be rewarding. It really brings a smile to my
face when children stay after class to discuss mathematical ideas
with me or other students. It doesn't happen nearly often enough.
Rodger
Oak Norton
May 14, 2009, 9:03:05 AM5/14/09
to Parents for Quality Math Education
Glad it helped Rodger. If you haven't browsed through this website,
you'll find additional information about Singapore math. I truly
believe it is the very best program available for students of all
demographics if teachers have good math skills. If teachers are
lacking in content knowledge, then Saxon is one of the very best
programs available because it helps teachers ensure the content is
taught regardless of their ability to see proper mathematical
connections and understand the path students must take to successfully
move through school.
www.UtahsMathFuture.com.
As a side note, there was a study (maybe you're familiar with it) done
a few years ago that showed the number 1 success factor for success in
college across ALL majors was how well the student did in algebra
class. Want successful history teachers? They ought to master
algebra. I think the reason for this is the reasoning power and
thinking skills that come from algebra. Anyone who masters it has
some ability to put together relationships between things and be able
to induce and deduce how the relationships are connected.
Oak
you'll find additional information about Singapore math. I truly
believe it is the very best program available for students of all
demographics if teachers have good math skills. If teachers are
lacking in content knowledge, then Saxon is one of the very best
programs available because it helps teachers ensure the content is
taught regardless of their ability to see proper mathematical
connections and understand the path students must take to successfully
move through school.
www.UtahsMathFuture.com.
As a side note, there was a study (maybe you're familiar with it) done
a few years ago that showed the number 1 success factor for success in
college across ALL majors was how well the student did in algebra
class. Want successful history teachers? They ought to master
algebra. I think the reason for this is the reasoning power and
thinking skills that come from algebra. Anyone who masters it has
some ability to put together relationships between things and be able
to induce and deduce how the relationships are connected.
Oak
Osana
May 14, 2009, 11:25:28 AM5/14/09
to Parents for Quality Math Education, oakn...@gmail.com
Oak,
Thanks a lot for your excellent input. Could you educate us a bit
more:
1) It seems that among math educators there are 2 buzz words that are
used a lot:
"traditional" and "conceptual" ways of teaching math. We hear from
math educators that "traditional" is an old (bad) way while
"conceptual" is a new (good) way of teaching math. I grew up in Russia
so we had a very traditional curriculum and we were taught
conceptually as well. I do not see why it has to be either /or ? May
be educators and parents are talking different languages here?
2) I heard that educators view Saxon math as "traditional" (in their
interpretation) and Singapore as "conceptual" (again in their
interpretation). What is different in those 2 approaches? Why would
someone choose Saxon over Singapore?
3) Math In Focus (Americanized version of Singapore Math as you
mentioned ) was released on a conference in April 2009.
http://www.greatsource.com/mathinfocus/
Did you have a chance to see those textbooks?
How do they compare to the real Singapore ones?
Looks like they follow NCTM Focal Points (that our curriculum
people would like).
(Side note that SCASD uses Every Day Counts Calendar from the same
publisher I believe).
Below is a paste of the Key topics covered by Math In Focus.
Thanks,
Osana
Math in Focus™ Key Topics at Each Grade Level
Grade 1
* Numbers to 100, including place value concepts
* Addition and subtraction facts
* Basic plane and solid figures
* Introduction to multiplication and division concepts
Grade 2
* Addition and subtraction algorithms, emphasizing place value
concepts
* Basic multiplication and division facts for 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10
* Measuring length, mass, capacity in the metric system
* Introduction to faction concepts
Grade 3
* Basic multiplication and division facts for 6, 7, 8, and 9 and
estimating products and quotients
* equivalent fractions and addition and subtraction of like
fractions
* Measuring length, weight, capacity, time and temperature
* Introduction to perimeter and area
Grade 4
* Multiplication and division by 1-digit numbers
* Addition and subtraction of improper fractions, mixed numbers,
and decimals
* Area, perimeter and properties of squares and rectangles
* Introduction to probability and data descriptors such as mean,
median, mode, and range
Grade 5
* Multiplication and division by 2-digit numbers
* Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of unlike
fractions and decimals
* Volume, surface area of prisms and properties of other solid
figures
* Introduction to ratios, percents, and algebraic concepts
Thanks a lot for your excellent input. Could you educate us a bit
more:
1) It seems that among math educators there are 2 buzz words that are
used a lot:
"traditional" and "conceptual" ways of teaching math. We hear from
math educators that "traditional" is an old (bad) way while
"conceptual" is a new (good) way of teaching math. I grew up in Russia
so we had a very traditional curriculum and we were taught
conceptually as well. I do not see why it has to be either /or ? May
be educators and parents are talking different languages here?
2) I heard that educators view Saxon math as "traditional" (in their
interpretation) and Singapore as "conceptual" (again in their
interpretation). What is different in those 2 approaches? Why would
someone choose Saxon over Singapore?
3) Math In Focus (Americanized version of Singapore Math as you
mentioned ) was released on a conference in April 2009.
http://www.greatsource.com/mathinfocus/
Did you have a chance to see those textbooks?
How do they compare to the real Singapore ones?
Looks like they follow NCTM Focal Points (that our curriculum
people would like).
(Side note that SCASD uses Every Day Counts Calendar from the same
publisher I believe).
Below is a paste of the Key topics covered by Math In Focus.
Thanks,
Osana
Math in Focus™ Key Topics at Each Grade Level
Grade 1
* Numbers to 100, including place value concepts
* Addition and subtraction facts
* Basic plane and solid figures
* Introduction to multiplication and division concepts
Grade 2
* Addition and subtraction algorithms, emphasizing place value
concepts
* Basic multiplication and division facts for 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10
* Measuring length, mass, capacity in the metric system
* Introduction to faction concepts
Grade 3
* Basic multiplication and division facts for 6, 7, 8, and 9 and
estimating products and quotients
* equivalent fractions and addition and subtraction of like
fractions
* Measuring length, weight, capacity, time and temperature
* Introduction to perimeter and area
Grade 4
* Multiplication and division by 1-digit numbers
* Addition and subtraction of improper fractions, mixed numbers,
and decimals
* Area, perimeter and properties of squares and rectangles
* Introduction to probability and data descriptors such as mean,
median, mode, and range
Grade 5
* Multiplication and division by 2-digit numbers
* Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of unlike
fractions and decimals
* Volume, surface area of prisms and properties of other solid
figures
* Introduction to ratios, percents, and algebraic concepts
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Osana
May 14, 2009, 6:59:06 PM5/14/09
to Parents for Quality Math Education
Here is Oak's answers to my questions. With his permission I post it
here.
This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for.
Thanks,
Osana
>>1) It seems that among math educators there are 2 buzz words that are
used a lot:
"traditional" and "conceptual" ways of teaching math. We hear from
math
educators that "traditional" is an old (bad) way while "conceptual"
is a
new (good) way of teaching math. I grew up in Russia so we had a very
traditional curriculum and we were taught conceptually as well. I do
not see
why it has to be either /or ? May be educators and parents are talking
different languages here?
If you talk to Dr. Milgram at Stanford he'll tell you traditional math
is awful. When I first heard him say this I was taken aback. What he
means (to put words in his mouth) is that the old way of teaching
concepts has fallen behind. What he'll also tell you is the "new
math" is even more awful because nothing is being taught. The problem
is how do we best teach children. The solution is to have a
curriculum that follows a logical sequence of events, develops them
to mastery by spending adequate time on each topic, and has
challenging problems to solve. In these 3 criteria Investigations
fails on each one. Singapore and Saxon provide all 3.
>>2) I heard that educators view Saxon math as "traditional" (in their
interpretation) and Singapore as "conceptual" (again in their
interpretation). What is different in those 2 approaches?
Why would someone choose Saxon over Singapore?
A few years ago I asked some of my national contacts "if someone held
a gun to your head and made you pick the top 3 math programs for
elementary schools, what would you say?" I was amazed that they all
picked Singapore first, Saxon second, and then it varied on the third
choice with no one fingering the same program as anyone else. They
had a caveat though. They said this was the best order *if* you had
strong teachers in math skill. If not, then Saxon was #1 because it
could help weak teachers teach math effectively.
John Saxon was an Air Force officer and engineer who went into
teaching math. He realized that concepts were out of order the way
they were being taught and how certain things had to be learned to get
to the next concept. So he took his textbook and ripped it apart and
put it back together in the order he felt best for his students. The
students began to do better and other teachers came to him and asked
him to show them what he'd done (and I think this is the right story--
if not, I'm sure you can find it on the web--I actually work with a
fellow who taught math with John and has nothing but the highest
regard for him).
So then John started to develop a program K-12 that followed a proper
sequence. When he had it done, nobody in the education community
would touch it because he wasn't "one of theirs". He was an engineer
and heaven forbid a math master telling educators how to teach. So
Saxon math took off in the homeschool market and a few schools began
to pick it up. The success of the program is quite amazing.
In the 90's when CA went off the deep end and dropped to 49/50 in the
country for math scores, a number of schools switched to Saxon. A
prof at Cal State tracked what their scores did and it was
miraculous. Poor minority schools (Title 1) scoring in the teens for
passing rates had their passing rate triple within 3-4 years. Rich
schools scoring in the 80's on fuzzy math had their passing rates go
into the 90's. Every socio-economic group improved substantially.
Saxon works. It is a logical progression of ideas, it incremental
concepts so every day you build on the day before and you spend time
mastering the concept, and there are excellent rigorous problems for
homework.
That said, Singapore is more visually appealing to fuzzy types because
there's kiddish pictures, but they are relevant. Saxon and Singapore
are pretty devoid of distracting pictures but use them to good effect.
I have used Singapore math at home with my kids when they were on
Investigations math, and now that they are in a charter school with
Saxon, they have taken off even more. My 8th grader is finishing
algebra 2 and geometry this year and will take pre-calc in 9th grade.
My 5th grader just finished 6th grade math, and my 3rd grader is
finishing 4th. This is because the charter we're at does ability
grouping and if you give your children a little advantage early on
mastering foundation skills, they will be able to jump ahead of peers
without any problem. This is why the study recently released showing
Investigations a full letter grade behind Saxon at the end of first
grade is so condemning, because it's K-3 when kids get the foundation
and then things start piling up. Successful K-3 programs lead to
success in 4-8, and success in algebra is the #1 factor indicating
potential success in college (across all majors).
>>3) Math In Focus (Americanized version of Singapore Math as you mentioned
) was released on a conference in April 2009.
http://www.greatsource.com/mathinfocus/
Did you have a chance to see those textbooks?
How do they compare to the real Singapore ones?
Looks like they follow NCTM Focal Points (that our curriculum
people
would like).
(Side note that SCASD uses Every Day Counts Calendar from the same
publisher I believe).
I have a few of the MIF books. They were sent to me by the company
rep and he sent a set to a teacher at Benchmark elementary in Arizona
that I know as an excellent Singapore math trainer. In looking over
them, many things seem removed from the Primary math series. There
are fewer problems, irrelevant pictures, and an absence of the
"challenging word problems" you can purchase to go with Primary Math.
Dr. Bisk from MA was a consultant or contributor and he's excellent,
but they seem "Americanized" and watered down.
It was interesting that Singapore lost it's #1 spot in the world with
the recent TIMSS results. This was the exam where for a few years
they had decided to allow for calculator use in elementary schools
following the U.S. fuzzy math example. They got burned for it and I
hope they reconsider. I'm not sure what calculator use there is in
MIF.
I'm not an expert in standards or curriculum, but I have spoken with a
lot of people who are and the consensus is Primary math is the best,
but MIF is still probably better than most American programs.
Oak
here.
This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for.
Thanks,
Osana
>>1) It seems that among math educators there are 2 buzz words that are
used a lot:
"traditional" and "conceptual" ways of teaching math. We hear from
math
educators that "traditional" is an old (bad) way while "conceptual"
is a
new (good) way of teaching math. I grew up in Russia so we had a very
traditional curriculum and we were taught conceptually as well. I do
not see
why it has to be either /or ? May be educators and parents are talking
different languages here?
is awful. When I first heard him say this I was taken aback. What he
means (to put words in his mouth) is that the old way of teaching
concepts has fallen behind. What he'll also tell you is the "new
math" is even more awful because nothing is being taught. The problem
is how do we best teach children. The solution is to have a
curriculum that follows a logical sequence of events, develops them
to mastery by spending adequate time on each topic, and has
challenging problems to solve. In these 3 criteria Investigations
fails on each one. Singapore and Saxon provide all 3.
>>2) I heard that educators view Saxon math as "traditional" (in their
interpretation) and Singapore as "conceptual" (again in their
interpretation). What is different in those 2 approaches?
Why would someone choose Saxon over Singapore?
a gun to your head and made you pick the top 3 math programs for
elementary schools, what would you say?" I was amazed that they all
picked Singapore first, Saxon second, and then it varied on the third
choice with no one fingering the same program as anyone else. They
had a caveat though. They said this was the best order *if* you had
strong teachers in math skill. If not, then Saxon was #1 because it
could help weak teachers teach math effectively.
John Saxon was an Air Force officer and engineer who went into
teaching math. He realized that concepts were out of order the way
they were being taught and how certain things had to be learned to get
to the next concept. So he took his textbook and ripped it apart and
put it back together in the order he felt best for his students. The
students began to do better and other teachers came to him and asked
him to show them what he'd done (and I think this is the right story--
if not, I'm sure you can find it on the web--I actually work with a
fellow who taught math with John and has nothing but the highest
regard for him).
So then John started to develop a program K-12 that followed a proper
sequence. When he had it done, nobody in the education community
would touch it because he wasn't "one of theirs". He was an engineer
and heaven forbid a math master telling educators how to teach. So
Saxon math took off in the homeschool market and a few schools began
to pick it up. The success of the program is quite amazing.
In the 90's when CA went off the deep end and dropped to 49/50 in the
country for math scores, a number of schools switched to Saxon. A
prof at Cal State tracked what their scores did and it was
miraculous. Poor minority schools (Title 1) scoring in the teens for
passing rates had their passing rate triple within 3-4 years. Rich
schools scoring in the 80's on fuzzy math had their passing rates go
into the 90's. Every socio-economic group improved substantially.
Saxon works. It is a logical progression of ideas, it incremental
concepts so every day you build on the day before and you spend time
mastering the concept, and there are excellent rigorous problems for
homework.
That said, Singapore is more visually appealing to fuzzy types because
there's kiddish pictures, but they are relevant. Saxon and Singapore
are pretty devoid of distracting pictures but use them to good effect.
I have used Singapore math at home with my kids when they were on
Investigations math, and now that they are in a charter school with
Saxon, they have taken off even more. My 8th grader is finishing
algebra 2 and geometry this year and will take pre-calc in 9th grade.
My 5th grader just finished 6th grade math, and my 3rd grader is
finishing 4th. This is because the charter we're at does ability
grouping and if you give your children a little advantage early on
mastering foundation skills, they will be able to jump ahead of peers
without any problem. This is why the study recently released showing
Investigations a full letter grade behind Saxon at the end of first
grade is so condemning, because it's K-3 when kids get the foundation
and then things start piling up. Successful K-3 programs lead to
success in 4-8, and success in algebra is the #1 factor indicating
potential success in college (across all majors).
>>3) Math In Focus (Americanized version of Singapore Math as you mentioned
) was released on a conference in April 2009.
http://www.greatsource.com/mathinfocus/
Did you have a chance to see those textbooks?
How do they compare to the real Singapore ones?
Looks like they follow NCTM Focal Points (that our curriculum
people
would like).
(Side note that SCASD uses Every Day Counts Calendar from the same
publisher I believe).
rep and he sent a set to a teacher at Benchmark elementary in Arizona
that I know as an excellent Singapore math trainer. In looking over
them, many things seem removed from the Primary math series. There
are fewer problems, irrelevant pictures, and an absence of the
"challenging word problems" you can purchase to go with Primary Math.
Dr. Bisk from MA was a consultant or contributor and he's excellent,
but they seem "Americanized" and watered down.
It was interesting that Singapore lost it's #1 spot in the world with
the recent TIMSS results. This was the exam where for a few years
they had decided to allow for calculator use in elementary schools
following the U.S. fuzzy math example. They got burned for it and I
hope they reconsider. I'm not sure what calculator use there is in
MIF.
I'm not an expert in standards or curriculum, but I have spoken with a
lot of people who are and the consensus is Primary math is the best,
but MIF is still probably better than most American programs.
Oak
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages