Archive for December, 2010

Reform Math: Where’s the Research?

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

The latest issue of AFT’s American Educator is all about curriculum (and a national one at that), and it’s worth a read. Specifically this piece on math by three scholars of education and education psychology. It is excerpted from a math journal, Notices of the American Mathematical Society.

The scholars point out that educators tend to view mathematics as a skills-oriented discipline, with problem-solving strategies (or lack thereof) dividing the achievers and non-achievers. But cognitive science doesn’t support this claim. Take chess, for example:

“[I]t takes at least ten years to become a chess master. What occurs during this period? When studying previous games, chess masters learn to recognize tens of thousands of board configurations and the best moves associated with each configuration … . The superiority of chess masters comes not from having acquired clever, sophisticated, general problem-solving strategies but rather from having stored innumerable configurations and the best moves associated with each in long-term memory.”

So it is building up a massive base of knowledge about the game that allows you to become a master. You can’t learn to think strategically about chess without such knowledge.

What does this mean for math? Well, among other things, that you cannot just teach kids “problem-solving” strategies and expect them to be able to apply those techniques to varied mathematical (or other) problems. They will not be able to do it if they lack the necessary knowledge, which, in the case of mathematics, is gained through experience doing math problems.

In the words of the authors: “Minimal instructional guidance in mathematics leads to minimal learning.” And: “There are no separate, general problem-solving strategies that can be learned.”

So why are so many American schools wasting resources and precious class time using reform curricula like Everyday Math that is based on an instruction-lite, discovery-driven approach to learning math? These scholars wonder…

“Instead of continuing to waste time devising “reform” curricula based on faulty ideas, mathematicians and math educators should work together to develop a sound K-12 curriculum that builds students’ mathematical knowledge through carefully selected and sequenced worked examples.”

Hear, hear!

Lynne Munson and Stephanie Porowski

Posted in Math and Science | No Comments »

Moving Forward (With Urdu)

Tuesday, December 14th, 2010

Thanks to America’s predictably poor performance in the latest round of PISA exams the education community is abuzz about our generation’s “Sputnik moment.” Everyone’s got a take on our nation’s math, science and readings deficiencies (you can read ours here).

Getting less attention is what CIA Director Leon Panetta recently had to say about America’s focus moving forward. Speaking at the Foreign Language Summit last week, he said:

“For the United States to get to where it needs to be will require a national commitment to strengthening America’s foreign language proficiency. A significant cultural change needs to occur. And that requires a transformation in attitude from everyone involved: individuals, government, schools and universities and the private sector.”

Really? Something besides math and reading skills to power the US into the 21st century? At the summit, even Arne sang the praises of a well-rounded education.

Talk of 21st-century learning tends to toss serious foreign language study (along with most other content) aside in favor of skills instruction. So it’s refreshing to hear officials acknowledge that 21st century learning necessitates the study of other cultures.

A teacher speaking at the summit said it well: “When schools adopt programs in Arabic, Chinese, Urdu, or another critically needed language, they are affirming the role of languages in a well-rounded education as well as the importance of including students in international dialogue.”

For this reason, among others, Common Core opposed a bill in California that would have effectively eliminated the state’s foreign language requirement for high school graduation. And we’ll continue to oppose any measure that narrows the purpose of education.

Panetta argues that foreign language skills will prepare the next-generation CIA to operate effectively. Taking his argument a step further — knowledge of other cultures will prepare the next generation of US citizens to contribute thoughtfully to an interconnected world.

Stephanie Porowski

Posted in Foreign Language | 1 Comment »

China Wins!!!

Tuesday, December 7th, 2010

The new PISA results are out and they are fascinating, though not because the US’s lackluster performance has changed much. We’re still well below average in math (tying Ireland to rank 31st and well behind Estonia, Slovenia, and three different testing regions in China). We remain solidly average in reading, coming in 17th (deadlocked with Poland and Iceland). Our “big news” is that we moved up to a single point above average in science. America’s 15-year-olds now rank 23rd in the world in science.

The Chinese, meanwhile, participating in PISA for the first time, tested at the top in every subject. And it wasn’t even close. Students in Shanghai bested the previous top placeholder on the PISA math test–Singapore–by almost 40 points. US students fell 113 points behind their Chinese peers in math and 56 points behind in reading. And even our new and improved science score trailed China’s by 73 points.

Arne Duncan calls these scores “a wake-up call.” You think? I’m going to go out on limb here and predict that the Obama administration will use these scores as further fuel to do more of the same–push charters, promote merit pay, and spend more and more. We don’t oppose spending more on education or evaluating teachers more accurately, or creating more ways to deliver education. But there’s no evidence these activities are going to boost our students’ performance.

The Chinese are almost exclusively focused on getting their students to meet high standards in a wide range of subjects that have been spelled out in clear curriculum guidance that has been provided to all schools and teachers. They focus on what students should learn. While we are focused on how, where, when, why they learn.

Until we pour our attention and resources into high quality curricula that are proven to work we’ll continue to be average.

Lynne Munson

Posted in Assessment, English/Language Arts, Math and Science | 1 Comment »

North Carolina: Making a Comeback?

Tuesday, December 7th, 2010

In February, we criticized proposed changes to North Carolina’s social studies standards. The standards draft eliminated American history prior to 1877 from the history course taken by North Carolina’s 11th graders. NCDPI received over 7,000 letters protesting the proposed changes.

Last week, the NC Board of Education approved revised social studies standards. Thanks to a “high level of input” (which Ed Week interprets as “vociferous criticism”), North Carolina’s students will now take four social studies courses, rather than three. Students will take two US history courses: US History I will cover European exploration of the New World through the Reconstruction Era, while US History II will cover the 19th century to contemporary time.

In 2006, the Fordham Institute concluded that North Carolina’s U.S. history standards “[do] not [constitute] a U.S. history education in any sense” and gave the standards an F. Let’s hope these new standards move the state’s students toward a deeper understanding of their history. Once again, we’ll be watching.

Stephanie Porowski

Posted in History/Social Studies | No Comments »