Again. Here's the somewhat muddled description of their decision from the PI.
Seattle public high schools this fall will use new math textbooks that have stirred controversy for their less-traditional teaching methods.
. . .
With the board's vote, the school district adopted textbooks published by Key Curriculum Press for algebra, advanced algebra, geometry, pre-calculus and calculus. For statistics classes, high school students will be using an Addison-Wesley brand textbook published by Pearson Education.
. . .
The controversy surrounded Key Curriculum's Discovering Mathematics series for algebra, advanced algebra and geometry, which officials describe as using an inquiry-based learning method. In a nutshell, the series focuses on helping students uncover math concepts on their own instead of laying out rules for memorization.
The idea that students should "uncover math concepts on their own" may sound like a joke, but it is at the heart of the "constructivist" approach to teaching math. Really.
Those who believe that students are more likely to learn math if they are taught math are not happy with this decision.
Here's a brief reaction from math teacher Dan Dempsey.
Seattle has chosen to mathematically disable the children for the next decade by using the Discovering Series from Key Curriculum Press.
Typical nonsense triumphs once again.
(Read some of his earlier posts if you want to know why he came to that conclusion.
UW Professor Cliff Mass is also displeased.
Tonight the Seattle School Board finally voted on the acquisition of high school math textbooks, and the results were both disappointing and tragic. In a four to three vote they agreed to adopt the Discovering Math series . . . extremely weak discovery/fuzzy math textbooks. Found to be "unsound" by a panel of mathematicians hired by the State Board of Education, the books are obviously deficient to anyone who knows about mathematics. What really is upsetting is that that the Seattle School District has now picked poor math curricula three times . . . since they selected very weak math books at the elementary (Everyday Math) and middle schools levels (CPM math). The trifecta of ineffective math books.
The bottom line of all this is that it will be virtually impossible for students in the State's largest school district to get a decent education in math. This has not been a successful district . . . with their students' math performance lagging seriously . . . and they have now sealed the academic fates of students over the next decade or so (the last time they acquired new high school math textbooks was over a decade ago).
(You'll want to read the whole post.)
Let me add one important point: The kids who will be hurt most by this are the kids who come from families with fewer resources, families that lack the education to make up for the defects in these texts on their own, and the money to hire private tutors.
Posted by Jim Miller at May 07, 2009 09:29 AM | Email ThisOn a more serious note though, I think the "constructive" approach to learning math might be more useful than the traditional approach for some students which is all the more reason we need school choice. Students who learn better through the "constructive" method can go to a school that teaches that way while students who learn through traditional means can go to another.
Posted by: WFP on May 7, 2009 09:45 AMI would like all students to be able to balance a check book. Sure that ability would let them see through the bankruptcy of Obama's 10 year spending plan but they won't be able to vote in 2012 anyway.
Posted by: KW64 on May 7, 2009 10:16 AMWhat a shame.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on May 7, 2009 10:39 AMLearning math by osmosis now....BRILLIANT!
Posted by: Rick D. on May 7, 2009 11:10 AMLeftists make a mess of everything they touch.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 7, 2009 11:44 AMThank God for spell checkers, or I'd read like a leftist.
Posted by: Hinton on May 7, 2009 12:26 PMPerhaps it was caused by a welding student "discovering" how to use a cutting torch?
Posted by: ewaggin on May 7, 2009 12:34 PMSo this issue is a concern. However, assuming that everyone should learn math like they did in the 1950s is nonsense, too. Experimentation is key.
Posted by: demo kid on May 7, 2009 12:43 PMIf parents had a choice of where to send their children, the morons running the government schools would still be morons, and still making moronic decisions, but the government schools would be empty, as the parents would have moved their children to schools where they could get an actual education.
Posted by: ewaggin on May 7, 2009 12:44 PMVery true. That's how the lottery has endured for decades.
Posted by: Palouse on May 7, 2009 12:45 PMhttp://mathpath.com/booklet.htm
Of particular interest is the theme that while mathematical operations look deceptively simple because they work so well, understanding ("discovering") the underlying principles is anything but simple.
Posted by: ewaggin on May 7, 2009 12:52 PMPersonally, I like elements of a constructivist approach -- I can tell my kids to memorize some notion that 2 + 2 = 4, OR can give 2 cents and add 2 more cents and ask how many they have. So the criticism that kids will 'discover it on their own' may not be accurate; some of these ideas simply guide the student through the discovery and application of a concept. I hated Trigonometry because is was just a semester of 'memorize all these formulas', whereas Calculus became fun because we got to dig into derivations and proofs.
So is the real problem with these textbooks that they are just crappy quality? Different approaches to math can be packaged poorly; that may be what's going on here. There could also be textbooks that go the rote memorization route but present it in crappy fashion.
Posted by: Erich on May 7, 2009 12:55 PMWhat is it with people in Seattle using failed ideology over and over. Let's elect all Democrats. We know our state is continuously falling behind in; business; education; manufacturing; etc, but we will just happily keep pissing our future away and elect the same exact people/party that are killing us. Woohoo Seattle.
Posted by: Mr RcGuy on May 7, 2009 12:59 PMFor example, having kids calculate pi themselves using string is a great way to get them to understand what it is and how it is the same no matter the size of the circle. However at some point they have to learn pir2 and how to use it.
These books never get kids to actually learn the formulas or how to do math with them.
Posted by: Giffy on May 7, 2009 01:41 PMYou have to know a bit of math to evaluate the books, and I just don't give Seattle teachers, or any teachers in the NEA for that matter, enough credit to assume they could evaluate a high school math book. Maybe they should have paid a little to get an expert consultant - I'd have only charged $500/ hr. to tell them all within 15 minutes to take the new book and shove it.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on May 7, 2009 01:48 PMI could not be happier with the math education at our school, as well as the rest of the subjects taught. It's so sad that public education COULD be doing a great job teaching basic math, but refuses to. It really doesn't cost any more to buy excellent math curriculum as it does to buy crappy math curriculum as described in the post.
Posted by: Michele on May 7, 2009 01:51 PMAnd the Seattle math teacher I quoted may be more typical of the math teachers there than you may think.
Who would I blame? The Seattle school bureaucrats, including the superintendent, and, of course, the majority on the school board.
Posted by: Jim Miller on May 7, 2009 02:02 PMhttp://www.keypress.com/documents/da2/Sampler%20PDFs/Chapters/DA2CS_SE.pdf
Posted by: Robert on May 7, 2009 02:17 PMExperimentation is NOT key because so much is at stake. Would you like to try out a new, radical wing design in mid flight with a plane full of people? A wise person would make incremental changes that can be easily undone and cause the least amount of harm should it not be the right route to pursue. This new way of "learning", fully proven to be ineffective, will condemn another generation (at least) to low wage, low skill jobs. That's a big price for the kids to pay.
The problem is that these educators really don't care about the kids. Either that or they are so full of agenda that they can't reason properly. Or maybe they are just plain stupid.
Whatever it is, the kids will pay and pay handsomely . . . with their futures.
Posted by: G Jiggy on May 7, 2009 02:47 PM
I don't buy it. All that proves that advanced mathematics was taught at American universities, and that the US at the time had both supply and demand for graduates of these programs. Demand has obviously skyrocketed since then, but supply hasn't kept up. We can't all be rocket scientists, though, and assuming that MORE rote learning will make students want to go into math and science is unrealistic.
I'd even argue that by blending methods you would get more people interested in these fields, or at least interested enough to become numerate. Some folks just don't learn as well with one type of approach, and can pick up the material better with an alternative. Furthermore, the critical thinking skills taught by a constructivist approach can also be extremely useful to have as part of a student's skill set.
Just throwing up our hands and saying that because an education system was good 60 years ago, we should use it today is foolish. Drastic change is not a great thing, but comparing ANY change to a plane crashing is not accurate.
Posted by: demo kid on May 7, 2009 03:33 PMBah. Experimentation may be key when kids are learning about the birds and the bees, but in learning the basic tools of mathematics - that's the sum of centuries of focused and diligent reasoning by individuals, for you historical illiterates - any teaching method aside from reasoned demonstration of principles and applications, with sufficient classroom discussion and individual practice at solving problems, is a colossal waste of time.
The methods of the 1950s were successful (distressed comments of the soreheads known as 'educators' excepted), and much of what has succeeded those methods can concisely be described as dumbing down.
But when teachers are organized to maximize their own rewards while minimizing their own efforts, the waste of student time is a mere trifle.
So this issue is a concern. However, assuming that everyone should learn math like they did in the 1950s is nonsense, too. Experimentation is key.
Which is why letting parents choose the schools through vouchers is the way to achieve the best success for the greatest number. This idiotic decision would not matter so much if the government schools didn't have such a monopoly on education.
With the government schools--like most government programs--we end up achieving the least success for the greatest number. In this case, we will have at least 4 classes of high school students who will be measurably below acceptable standards for basic mathematics knowledge. Good enough for barista jobs and welfare, but that is all.
But as usual, Seattle is in a race to continually make the most politically correct, yet worst decisions when the results are actually tallied. Hopeless.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 7, 2009 06:05 PMI have a kid in high school in Seattle. I have no clue how to help with most of the problems. I can spend an hour reading the book, looking at the examples, and still have only the vaguest of ideas what the hell they are looking for. When I show my kid how to get the right answers using traditional methods it makes perfect sense to both of us.
The math teach disagrees. Grades are not good. The homework has the right answers, but the test grades using the required techniques are a train wreck. The Hairy Urchin is distraught, but at least not getting any grief from dad. Probably going to do a lot of work at home and invest in Kumon sessions. Grades may suck, but the core knowledge will be there.
I love the Northwest, but Seattle sucks.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on May 7, 2009 07:28 PMI think that those are excellent programs, and deliver great results. Applying similar techniques to other fields is a great thing, too. However, you need to keep the interests of students, and you need to show them the why behind these principles. There's room for these techniques AND constructivist approaches.
@32: Experimentation may be key when kids are learning about the birds and the bees, but in learning the basic tools of mathematics - that's the sum of centuries of focused and diligent reasoning by individuals, for you historical illiterates - any teaching method aside from reasoned demonstration of principles and applications, with sufficient classroom discussion and individual practice at solving problems, is a colossal waste of time.
Interesting that you used THAT example. :) But still... in education, your objective is to use as many techniques to get students to learn as you can. There is more to education than memorization, and critical thinking is a very important skill in every discipline. Doesn't mean that you can't teach the fundamentals, and rote should be in there somewhere. But simply arguing that something is good simply because it's been used for a while is not always right. Problem-based learning in education, for example, has been an extremely useful innovation.
@38: I can spend an hour reading the book, looking at the examples, and still have only the vaguest of ideas what the hell they are looking for. When I show my kid how to get the right answers using traditional methods it makes perfect sense to both of us.
Then give us a few math problems! Let's figure them out, and then let's see how their technique solved it.
And don't get me wrong... I agree with the idea that rote learning should play SOME part. But there is room for BOTH strategies in the curriculum.
@39: Just curious Demo Kid, does your college education include a degree in mathematics?
Same score as the Hairy Buddah on the math SATs, an engineering degree... I do okay. Better in statistics than differential equations.
Posted by: demo kid on May 7, 2009 08:31 PMThat appears to be an opinion shared in general by the math and science community.
Posted by: KDS on May 7, 2009 08:45 PMIs it yes? Or is it no?
Posted by: pbj on May 7, 2009 08:57 PMhttp://www.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/CLIFF%27SVITAELatest091208.htm
Posted by: demo kid on May 7, 2009 08:57 PMI put up with the crappy Seattle schools for nine years and can count on one hand the decent teachers my kids had. Most were barely adequate and some were down right awful including a math teacher who made up her own problems that had no solution. She just told the kids to write down what they thought the answer should be. Basically she was just too damn lazy to teach.
Posted by: Burdabee on May 7, 2009 09:20 PMYou're kidding right? A degree in education is one of the easiest to obtain. In your world, a PhD in atmospherics science and B.S. in Physics is substandard to an "education" degree when commenting on the optimal mathematical learning method?
Posted by: Happy Cinco de Ocho on May 8, 2009 05:20 AMLet's see now. We built a spacecraft and sent it to the moon and back with 1950's math.
We broke the sound barrier. Should I go on.
Students do need to "spice up" the math some but they desperately need more practice at the basics. they rely too much on calculators and cannot do the basic functions.
I think studetns need a strong fundametnal math program with a basic text. Let the teachers add the spice. I have tried working with some of these books and it is even difficult for me to figure out what they want and what they are asking (they have too many words in the MATH problems and not enough information inthe books).
I can explain the problems in the standard way and my kids can get it. When I try to use the books terms (new math), it just doesn't work, the kids don't get it and it confuses more than explains the concepts. I never had any problems with math all the way past differential equations. My older kid excelled in Math and had a standard curriculum. The younger one got the "new" curriculum, struggled, was frustrated and ended up hating math and wants to go into non-math and science areas.
Posted by: correctnotright on May 8, 2009 07:46 AMNo... I'm saying that he's not an expert in education at the secondary level.
Posted by: demo kid on May 8, 2009 08:01 AMThe bottom line is that public schools need to be forced to teach basic math and science. These subjects are fact, logic and process-based and require a methodical and disciplined approach from both the teaching and learning perspectives. It is hard work to teach or learn math and science. It is much easier to teach subjects where "feelings", rather than facts prevail. So our WEA-dominated public schools have chosen to concentrate on indoctrinating students with classes emphasizing environmental worship and racial/sexual diversity instead of fact-based math and science. I guess joebandmember got it right in #47 with his comment that "Dumb kids make better Democrats".
Posted by: Sal on May 8, 2009 08:13 AMIs there more of a focus on math because math scores are tracked through state-wide testing and college entrance exams?
It makes me wonder what sort of education a student is getting in a high-school physics class if they have a poor background in mathematics, but I guess that doesn't show up on a test like the WASL so it's akin to taking an elective like basket weaving.
Posted by: Smoley on May 8, 2009 08:46 AMBut more and more, teachers are just appendages of the education unions and school boards that have specific policy goals, many that have no relation at all to actually educating children in math.
We know what works, because we have past results, and results from other countries and many schools here in the US that have gone back to Singapore style math, to great success.
But, consistently, SPS is not interested in what works, or in empowering teachers, but in politically correct, reflexive, and Progressive policy. Results will continue to decline until that changes.
My suggestion is to move your kids to either a neighborhood, city, or private school that teaches math using traditional methods. Or you will have to use adjunct math tutoring like Kumon or Mathnasium. Especially if he or she shows any scientific or technical aptitude.
Because if a science oriented kid is allowed to flounder in Constructivist math, they won't be able to compete with their Singapore math educated peers as they move to higher levels of math where sound fundamentals are expected, and the protective victim coddling of SPS is no longer there to assure them that feeling is more important than results.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 8, 2009 09:01 AMThe people I respect as educators and/or mathematicians appreciate that this is not a black and white issue. Good math instruction involves a combination of facts and discovery. I am turned off by people who mock the idea that kids should discover math concepts. Discovering concepts has been a big part of my math education (I have degrees in math and engineering and have tutored a few people over the years). I'm also turned off by many other criticisms of this textbook, such as those who pine for the good old days and over-rely on test scores.
But ... I found the chapter on the web to be way too roundabout. When you want a kid to discover a concept, you focus on that one concept, without confusing it with all sorts of other issues. Then, once the concept is learned, you can extend it to more complex situations. I felt the chapter overstimulates kids with a lot of different ideas and then asks them to figure out what they're getting at.
I hesitate to condemn this curriculum based on one chapter. And I'm sure this textbook would be OK if used in conjunction with good teaching. But I'm not impressed.
Posted by: Bruce on May 8, 2009 10:32 AMFirst of all I think that a crashing plane is a very accurate analogy. I have not seen the insides of the books but from the opinion of a couple of UW profs, the children using these books will have no (and have had no) practical math abilities and will need remedial math instruction to even get into a community or junior college. The kids actually break down into tears when they find out that they are so deficient in the math they need to succeed in what they wish to do.
As I thought I expressed pretty clearly in my post, I am not against experimentation for improvement but radical, wholesale course change to a known, proven bad source of mathematics learning is devastating to the children and will effect them negatively for a lifetime. I'm not sure what your gig is but if you have any concept of research, science or engineering, such drastic change is always foolish and we are doing this foolishness with kids' lives.
If a logical upgrade progression from what we know works ("from 60 years ago") had been instituted from that time to today the kind of thing we are experiencing now wouldn't be happening and our kids' knowledge and expertise would be the envy of the world rather than the laughing stock.
Posted by: G Jiggy on May 8, 2009 11:33 AM
Cliff Mass has been involved with Math education issues for over 10 years and has been on site councils for Math at at least one HS. He knows his stuff on math education.
I agree that the traditional methods of math teaching left some students behind - but the new methods confuse the poor students and irritate the the good students.
The basic fundamentals are missing from a lot aof students and there is an overreliance on calculators. Good math text books need to have easy reference material, so the student (or parent helper) can look at t problem and then look up the background or equations that need to be applied.
Many of these discovery books have obtuse problems that are too wordy, no place to look up the basic equations and not enough practice of basic equations and manipulations.
Students coming out of HS with these books cannot set up simple equations, solve for single vatrriables or perform the basic functions needed to solve a problem - they can't even figure out how many unknowns there are and how many equations.
We need to do better with the basics in HS. This series will not help and only a great teacher can compensate for the poor book.
Posted by: correctnotright on May 8, 2009 01:24 PMA physics teacher might back up and teach the math if necessary. Shouldn't have to, but it happens.
That was exactly my impression after reading the online sample. I wondered after reading all that how a kid was supposed to figure out what the concepts were.
Posted by: pbj on May 8, 2009 02:23 PMBy changing the methods every few years, you make it very difficult or impossible for each generation to assist the next generation with their homework.
By making it harder for parents to be involved with their kids at home, the school takes the place of parents more and more because the parents are not schooled in the "new methods".
I had to help my daughter understand, but in order to do that, I had to read full chapters in the math book, understand the concept and explain it to her so that she could get her homework done in time for the next day. I could easily get the right answers, I just couldn't always put it in to context with what the text book (and teacher) wanted. Talk about a frustrating year.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 8, 2009 03:56 PMThat's why the educated parents in my kid's district screamed bloody murder when the Tacoma School Board tried to hand down a program from on high. In so many words, the board complained that our school had too many parents who cared and were too involved and too vocal and that created an unfair advantage when compared with the schools in districts with lots of single parent families who treat school like daycare.
We said, so what, give us good curricula, or we are going to put on a lot more political pressure. The board relented, Tacoma has good math curricula that matches other high achieving private schools. And now, our school has the highest scores because parents give a rip, and the teachers are the good ones that want to teach kids who want to learn.
By contrast, Seattle likes to prop up the schools that are failing as a show of diversity and their good intentions. But that doesn't produce results. Results require hard work from parents, teachers, students and good curricula that has withstood the test of time. After a lot of hard work in the face of the ignorant SPS Board, even Goldy got fed up and sent his daughter to Mercer Island.
Progressives can destroy their Seattle schools, it's what Seattle deserves for electing and supporting people who consistently support failed curricula, and people who don't want to help themselves. In the future, UW will be mostly out of state, and out of city students.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 8, 2009 09:38 PMIf you are not teaching them that, by the tell them how to do it and make them practice method, then what are we paying you for?
Republicans and conservatives: knock off the "intelligent design" creationist crap and bang on this. For this is where we can make some headway against the liberal idiocy.
Posted by: Roger Knight on May 10, 2009 01:16 PMif i remember building my airplane models right w/ decals (my fav) & sniffin that OSHA unsafe glue, was that called the Blackbird?
if not, God Bless America anyway!
now flyin' the Gadsden
sure, costs a lot, but maybe I just don't drive an Escalade w/ spinner wheel caps or go to Disneyworld every 2 years; it's called "priorities"
yes--public schools I know teach--and maybe teach with vigor with well-meaning teachers; however, no one circles back to see if anything stuck; no one is accountable for failures; pass 'em along;
pasta flung on wall does not equate to mastered topics that stick; celebrating the teaching process; not the desired results; until the system gets that point, (like private industry) it's hopeless;
granted, teachers can't work miracles with dyp-shyt apathetic parents who don't care, or are absent, but the system and unions do much to impede the learning process & dumb down; and forget about all the usless DC control & bureaucracy; abolish it; keep this a local issue; just my opin's
Posted by: jimmie howya-doin on May 11, 2009 10:37 PM