National Standards

At last week's NCTM conference, the buzz was clearly about national math standards.  Secretary of Education Duncan all but said that he favors national standards.  Of course, the unanswered question is who would write such national standards and would they be voluntary or mandatory.  Time Magazine (of all places) had an article on April 15th by Walter Isaacson: How to Raise the Standard in America's Schools

Issacson states:

Fortunately, there is already a process under way that could, if properly nurtured, take charge of writing common national standards. The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) have been working with a nonprofit called Achieve Inc. In 2001, Achieve helped launch the American Diploma Project, which establishes curriculum standards that align with what a graduate will need to succeed in college, the military or a career. Gene Wilhoit, the executive director of CCSSO, hopes to kick this effort up a notch at a special meeting in Chicago on April 17 by announcing an agreement among 25 states to support an aggressive schedule to devise internationally benchmarked math and English standards for all grade levels. "I see standards as the essential foundation for all education reforms," he says.  These standards could build on the existing NAEP tests, which currently are administered every few years to a representative sample of students around the country in grades 4, 8 and 12. This type of approach was endorsed by the Commission on No Child Left Behind, a bipartisan group led by former governors Tommy Thompson and Roy Barnes that was run by the Aspen Institute, where I work.

The unanswered question:  Is NJ one of those 25 states - only the Commissioner knows and she remains silent on the issue.

NCTM Conference Blog

A number of educators created a blog about their experience during the 2009 annual meeting. 

It is an excellent blog that covers the opening session (Pedro Noguera, a leader in education reform, offers a dynamic, profound perspective on the challenges of racial inequality)  to the closing session (Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education) including several webcasts.

Jo Boaler

I have posted about Jo Boaler previously and her critique of the National Math Panel Report.  Jo Boaler has just had a new book published called "What's Math Got to Do With It? Helping Children Learn to Love Their Least Favorite Subject - and 
Why It's Important for America. (Viking/Penguin).

Dr. Boaler has also researched and written numerous articles on mathematics education.  Her most recent research which she spoke about at NCTM was Creating Mathematical Futures through an Equitable Teaching Approach: The Case of Railside School.

The low and inequitable mathematics performance of students in urban American high schools has been identified as a critical issue contributing to societal inequities. In an effort to better the field’s understanding of equitable and successful teaching, we report results from a five-year longitudinal study of approximately 700 students as they progressed through three high schools.   One of the findings of the study was the important success of “Railside” school, where the mathematics department had detracked classes some years ago and taught through a reform-oriented approach. At Railside school students learned more, enjoyed mathematics more and progressed to higher mathematics levels. This paper presents large-scale evidence of these important achievements and provides detailed analyses of the ways that the\ Railside teachers brought them about, with a focus on the teaching and learning interactions within the classrooms.

The mathematical success shared by many students at Railside gave them access to mathematical careers, higher-level jobs and more secure financial futures. The fact that the teachers were able to achieve this through a multidimensional, reform-oriented approach at a time in California when unidimensional mathematics work and narrow test performance was all that was valued (Becker & Jacob, 2000) may give other teachers hope that working for equity and mathematical understanding against the constraints the system provides is both possible and worthwhile.

 

Scientists & Engineers

A wonderful article by Lynn Steen entitled Data, Shapes, Symbols:  Achieving Balance in School Mathematics in Quantitative Literacy: Why Numeracy Matters for Schools and Colleges discussed how mathematics has changed drastically and the importance of technology in the sciences and by engineers.  Dr. Steen's writes:

Computers also are changing profoundly how mathematics is practiced. The use of spreadsheets for storing, analyzing, and displaying data is ubiquitous in all trades and crafts. So too are computer tools of geometry that enable projection, rotation, inversions, and other fundamental operations to be carried out with a few keystrokes. Scientists and engineers report that, for students in these fields, facility with spreadsheets (as well as other mathematical software) is as important as conceptual understanding of mathematics and more valuable than fluency in manual computation (Barker 2000). With rare exceptions (primarily theoretical scientists and mathematicians) mathematics in practice means mathematics mediated by a computer.

Task Force Meeting #3

The 3rd meeting of the task force has concluded.

The AM session had three groups meet again (the same from the 2nd meeting) each examining one of three standards (Number, Geometry, and Algebra).

To date, Probability, Data, and Discrete Math nor the Process standards have been discussed.

The PM session had different groups meet by grade level to write lists of the big ideas in each grade level (sort of like the focal points).  

Another meeting has been scheduled for May 12th.  Objectives are:

(1) Focal point lists that we generated to be analyzed again

(2) CPIs to be reviewed again based on focal points lists

(3) Talk about next steps (still to be decided).  Maybe the Commissioner will address us.

I'm off to NCSM & NCTM for rest of the week.

A Conversation with an Anti-Reformist

Below appears an exchange between myself and an anti-reformist who serves on the DOE math task force. 

On Sunday morning, I wrote to the task force members:

After reflecting on the process that has been taking place at the task force meetings, I want to suggest that to get the task force on a better track, the comparison documents prepared by the NJ Math & Science Coalition be used as the basis for the discussion of the three groups -- not because the Coalition has the "right" answers, but because it contains a summary of the two documents (Feb 09 and Dec 08) and a thoughtful review of them, and reflects a serious attempt to find common ground.  I have attached the comparison documents of the Number Strand and the Geometry Strand.  These documents contain every indicator of the Dec 08 standards (written by the math standards committee) and the Feb 09 document (written by DOE personnel).  The Coalition is meeting all day today (yes, Sunday) to prepare the Algebra Strand and I will send that out tonight.

The response from the anti-reformists (name withheld) was:

I appreciate that work that you and the NJ Math and Science Coalition have done.  However, I believe that best way to put NJ on the right track is to seriously consider the comments from mathematicians from around the country as well as other comments provided to the NJDOE.  I must say that I respectfully disagree with you. Just using the December draft for comparison will not put New Jersey on the right track for success; this document has failed our children.  We have a 70% math remediation rate at the community colleges. We must use the NMAP as a blueprint and look to the highest performing countries as well as highly regarded state standards.  In order to do this, we must eliminate topics to make our standards more focused, rigorous, coherent and clear.  Additionally, as recommended by the NMAP, we must consider what is necessary for our children to have mastered to lay the proper foundation for Algebra I.  Let me reiterate that it is important that our children must understand concepts first followed by mastery which then can be applied to problem solving that becomes more complex over time.

My reply to the anti-reformists was:

When it comes to standards, it's the details that are important.  And the Coalition has conducted a detailed analysis of the two documents and has tried to incorporate the meritorious recommendations of BOTH documents.  It is just one piece that will help us reach common ground. The comments of mathematicians are welcome by the task force as our recommendations from the Singapore standards.  Many of them are incorporated into the Coalition’s comparison document.  We agree that the standards have too many CPIs and we have made attempts to reduce them.  The task force will not have accomplished its task if it ignores this analysis and thus ends up with a document which will not be accepted by the mathematics education community in the state. Your failure rhetoric and restating of assumptions does not seem to give any perception that you are looking for common ground.   I challenge you to read the comparisons document. I challenge you to stop the failure rhetoric and look for real common ground solutions for the good of NJ students.

The anti-reformists responded:

I am following the directive of Commissioner Davy that our starting point must be the February draft. Enjoy the beautiful weather.

In summary, when you challenge the anti-reformist to put down their rhetoric and ask them to search for common ground, they respond with the weather.

California Here We Come

Tom O’Brien and Marianne Smith wrote an article entitled Three Strikes about the National Math Panel and much more.  The first part of the paper describes and comments upon three aspects of the back-to-basics movement: the make-up and mindset of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMP),the movement’s history in California, and recent “grassroots” activities of the movement in the state of Washington. The second part reports and comments on the principal findings of the NMP report.  We, in NJ, must learn the lessons of California so that they are NOT repeated in NJ.  The authors write:

The origins of the most recent swing of the pendulum toward back-to-basics in mathematics education has been documented in books and articles about the trajectory of education policy in the state of California during the 1990s. By 1999, changes were made in the state’s mathematics framework and academic standards, in teacher professional development programs, as well as to textbook adoption guidelines. The changes were made under very controversial circumstances. The rigidity of these changes significantly affected professional development providers, who must sign a loyalty oath— an agreement to follow the back-to basics California state standards. The California back-to-basics movement has since metastasized through the years to Massachusetts, New York, Missouri, Washington, New Jersey and Utah. Despite claims made by California back-to-basics leadership that their Standards are “worldclass” and “rigorous,” 2007 data show that only 23% of California students are proficient in Algebra I by the end of high school and NAEP data showed 30 and 24 per cent of pupils proficient at grades 4 and 8 respectively. The California grade 4 NAEP results were higher than only 1 of 52 states and other jurisdictions and the grade 8 results were higher than only 4 of 52 jurisdictions.   It is clear that the data do not give much support for the Panel's embrace of California's "world class" curriculum.

 Why, then, do you read in newspapers about how terrible the mathematics programs developed in the 1990’s are and how successful California is? It has to do with an organization called Mathematically Correct, whose membership and funding is secret. Their goal is to have schools, districts, and states adopt the California standards and they recommend Saxon materials as the answer to today’s problems. They are radicals, out of the mainstream, who use fear to get their way.   Their other suggestions included replacing the Standards with California’s “world class” standards; purge the state schools of any "reform" curricula; erase the influence of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards; make sure that no decision on math instruction is influenced by any educational research or anyone from a college of education; adopt alternative textbooks, such as those now published in Russia or Singapore; look to mathematicians and "good teachers" while avoiding advice of "mathematics educators" (a rung or two below the night custodian) and teachers whose instruction mirrors constructivist notions, a practice which separates them from the "good teachers.”

Doesn't this sound just like NJ now.  Look at the language.  "world class"  "mathematicians not math educators"  "Singapore"   If we are not united, it is California here we come.

 

Stalkers of Math Educators

Johnny Lott, NCTM President from 2002-2004, wrote "Calling Out the Stalkers of Mathematics Education". Johnny categorized the stalkers into three categories.  In NJ, we certainly see one of these types - the type that use fear and half-truths and scare tactics.  Johnny states:

Consider people who use half-truths, fear, and innuendo to control public opinion about mathematics education. As an example, look at Web sites that continue to use a public letter written in 1999 to then Secretary of Education Richard Riley by a group of mathematicians and scientists defaming reform mathematics curricula developed with National Science Foundation grants. Even though some of those who signed the letter subsequently retracted their statements or wrote letters stating that they did not sign the letter thinking it would be used as it has been, the letter seems to surface any time there is controversy over school curricula. A small group continues to use the letter in an attempt to thwart changes to mathematics curricula. This has been done in California, Massachusetts, and most recently New York. This letter is not the only example of half-truths and innuendo being used against mathematics curricula, even though continuing research shows that such curricula do in fact work when used by knowledgeable teachers. All of us must work to stop this stalking of reform mathematics curriculum

Comic Relief

Between all the rhetoric of the math wars in NJ, I do still teach classes at Rowan University. I have the pleasure to teach Senior Seminar which is the last class that math majors take before graduating. It is a great opportunity to discuss with students the issues that I am engaged in and seek their opinions. Students are very interested in the calculator discussion (calculator ban for the anti-reformists). One student for his final project in my class, wrote the music, lyrics, and directed the following video on the issue.

Mental Strategies

The Salt Lake Tribune (April 13, 2009) ran an article entitled: Students build empires to learn math Education. Teacher creates game that offers pupils real world problems and decisions by Lisa Schencker.

A Utah teacher, Scott Laidlaw, encourages students to focus on solving problems using mental strategies rather than paper and pencil using a game called Empire created by the teacher. It's a way to teach math, Laidlaw said, that keeps students interested by showing them real world applications.

Fourth-grader Carson Luke said Empire makes math interesting. He said he hopes to one day build his empire, Constitution, to the point where he can start conquering his enemies. "At my old school, we just did worksheets and tests," Luke said. "In this game, it's much more hands-on."