tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762201600804179432.post5921400012540115628..comments2016-10-01T06:18:27.028-07:00Comments on Betrayed - Why Public Education Is Failing: Common Core leading districts to adopt unproved math programs and failed approachesLaurie H. Rogershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18367210923946752695noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762201600804179432.post-85896542684803392092016-02-17T23:28:05.527-08:002016-02-17T23:28:05.527-08:00Outstanding blog. For all concerned, there is a c...Outstanding blog. For all concerned, there is a concerted effort by WA OSPI to promote "open source" 'curriculum' like Math Vision Project (MVP) - a PURE 'Discovery' scheme with ZERO math content and also EngageNY.<br /><br />This is promoted as "deeply aligned" and "free". At our district, the intent is to replace Holt with MVP. Not "Free" - parents and tutors have to put in a lot of time to get the kids up to speed. Kids without resourcing at home will - and are - failing.<br /><br />If anyone has information on MVP, please send to scott.smith@eamsystems.comScott Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762201600804179432.post-90656264321907159972015-11-24T17:13:12.967-08:002015-11-24T17:13:12.967-08:00Hello everyone,
I'm doing a research about CPM...<br />Hello everyone,<br />I'm doing a research about CPM math curriculum.<br />Anyone have information about the curriculum or any state, school districts drop it, please contact me at PHAMTHANH472@YAHOO.COM<br />Thank you!<br />Thanhthanh phamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019089589582781122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762201600804179432.post-20316216382806850162013-06-07T12:26:03.784-07:002013-06-07T12:26:03.784-07:00This has happened in Fairfield, CT with a secondar...This has happened in Fairfield, CT with a secondary math curriculum CPM. CPM is a student centered inquiry based pedagogy that has been implemented in our Algebra 1 classes under the guise of Common Core. The sell by administrators was that it best aligned with the mathematics practices. However after months of research and advice from professors and experts in the mathematics, parents found out that the Common Core does not dictate curriculum or instructional model. Our administrators are pure constructivists who are pushing their own pedagogy. The CPM textbook was never approved by the board. CT State Statute10-229 states that any change of a textbook needs two- thirds vote by the board members. Shortly after this statute was presented to Central office,administrators and board members started to change their stories- now the book was a "piloted" textbook not an instructional model.- pilots don't need approval in our district just periodic reports to board- which never even happened. Parents filed with the State Department of Education and this is where we stand as of today -http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/New-chapter-State-orders-inquiry-into-Fairfield-4581150.php<br /><br />Parents want to set guidelines and policies for future pilots. With the Common Core at the back door, we can only see more of these implementations happening in the future. Our administrators are not required to provide the parent of the Algebra 1 students with a statistical analysis of the study. There were no benchmarks or metrics in their so called pilot. They used every Algebra I student in the district- no control and comparison groups. They only used "testimonies" to tell parents in May that "feedback" about the program has influenced their decision not to use CPM next year. Our children were basically used as lab rats in an experiment... even lab rats have an official statistical report at the end of their experiment. Dawn Llewellyn-Fairfield Math AdvocatesDawn Llewellynhttp://www.fairfieldmathadvocates.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762201600804179432.post-58687449290610557422013-03-01T16:28:57.581-08:002013-03-01T16:28:57.581-08:00Laurie, I found Where's the Math org and your ...Laurie, I found Where's the Math org and your blog today. Thanks so much and I have been furious with how math is taught at public schools ever since my son moved from a private school to Bellevue's gifted program as a 3rd grader. Bellevue uses Math Expressions. Perhaps better than Everyday Math but I still found errors and misleading questions to confuse kids. <br /><br />To Paul, you have an interesting point, but my counter point is that the teachers at the schools (especially at elementary level) are NOT ready to teach math in the way that you suggested. Because they do not have advanced degrees in math and science (they don't even specialize - they teach all subjects). They need a more structure curriculum to hand the kids the most basic tools first. And then perhaps at high school level, the kids will be ready to explore with more specialized teachers. Not at K-5. So I agree with the Army Aviator. <br /><br />I almost got my PhD in math in US and was educated in China K-12. I always say that to be a math and science major coming out the US K-12 system, one must be a genius and natural math person because the education system does nothing to help. So Paul, you must be one of the natural math/science persons. I am naturally more of an artist, but I was so much better in math than most of my peers in US college (because my K-12 was in China) that I majored in math. I know a lot of math/engineering professional from China or India may not be the best "natural" math persons, but the right system can produce engineers more effectively. I am pretty sure that if I had my K-12 in US, I would be an artist, not a data scientist. (I am not arguing which way is better, but as far as the problem is about producing more students who are competent in math, a more structured and systematic approach is more effective at a macro level.chen zhaohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04033332601438948427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762201600804179432.post-40800798146466719502013-01-29T21:30:27.376-08:002013-01-29T21:30:27.376-08:00To Paul Rutherford:
You’re an aerospace engineer....To Paul Rutherford:<br /><br />You’re an aerospace engineer. Presumably, you understand aerodynamics. Your students have to learn the concept of Rho before they can apply it in a lift-drag-total aerodynamic force construct. They can’t inquire their way to Rho. They can’t discover lift and drag and resultant total aerodynamic force without the tools that someone must “directly” teach to them.An Army Aviatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762201600804179432.post-61111473458261008722013-01-29T20:01:41.719-08:002013-01-29T20:01:41.719-08:00Greetings,
I have been a mathemtics, physics,...Greetings,<br /> I have been a mathemtics, physics, and engineering educator for 30 years, and that was after 11 years as naval aircraft maintenance/engineering duty officer. I earned my mechanical/aerospace engineering degree prior to my commissioning as a navy officer. I am a product of 'direct instruction' throughout my pre-college years. When I arrived in an engineering degree program, I struggled. Why? I was chalk full of facts, and equations. I graduated top in my high school class of 645 students. I was NEVER taught how to think on my own. I was simply told to do physics and mathematics problems, "This way." I NEVER had the opportunity to 'discover', to inquire, as-it-were. Theodore von Karman, the father of modern aeronautics, quoted in Richard Rhodes, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", "we never had to memorize equations, and facts. We were allowed to explore. What better training for a scientist!" If this country IS to produce scientists, mathematicians, engineers, doctors, etc. we MUST provide opportunities for our students to explore, to get frustrated, granted with a caring and content expert teacher close-at-hand. I provide my students with many and varied activities to learn the concepts of physics, and upwards of 95% of them go on to earn their engineering degrees and subsequently become professional engineers. Now granted, I balance 'inquiry' with 'direct' instruction. Anyone who thinks at is all one or the other is a fool. When I was a nanvy officer, I was witness to so many of my young sailors lacking in basic mathematics and science when they were undergoing training to maintain some of the most advanced aircraft on the planet. Much time was spent 're-learning' what 'direct' instruction failed to teach because that was the sole method back in their high schools. In closing, there must be a balance between both pedagogies. "A mind is not merely a vessel to be fillled, but rather a fire to be kindled." ~PlutarchPaul M. Rutherford, PhDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762201600804179432.post-83583969517331887842013-01-26T15:57:29.525-08:002013-01-26T15:57:29.525-08:00Hi Laurie, I just found your blog via the Parents ...Hi Laurie, I just found your blog via the Parents Against Everyday Math facebook page. Thanks so much for all your hard work and for a giving a voice to so many of us who are fed up and frustrated. My daughter in is the 4th grade in Portland Maine. I have just applied to be on the district's curriculum committee. I will definitely be using your blog as a reference.Jenny Silernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762201600804179432.post-3112527629370361622013-01-24T10:24:31.413-08:002013-01-24T10:24:31.413-08:00Excellent article. As I've said elsewhere, Co...Excellent article. As I've said elsewhere, Common Core math standards lend themselves to be interpreted as requiring the student-centered inquiry-based pedagogy you write about. There is a pedagogical bias inherent in the CC stds. They do not HAVE to be interpreted in this manner, however. The content standards can be met without the progressive education focus.Barry Garelickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01281266848110087415noreply@blogger.com