Will Schools Be Able to “Opt Out” of Math Investigations?
By Greg L | 12 January 2009 | Prince William County | 49 Comments
County School Board Chairman Milt Johns put a fascinating item on the agenda of the School Board’s meeting for January 21st. It’s a discussion about whether schools should be able to “opt in” to provide “traditional” math instruction to elementary students instead of the controversial TERC “Math Investigations” program. If you’re a parent that is concerned about whether your children should be subjected to an experimental and unproven program, you might want to be there. If you’re a parent who likes the Math Investigations program and want to defend it, you’d want to be there, too.
Personally, I think this program is too expensive, insufficiently proven, and the results so far don’t demonstrate the program’s value. When some of the arguments offered in support of the program talk about how we’ve already spent too much money to go back to using traditional materials we already own, and could use for free. When “sunken costs” start being used as a justification for future spending, that sends up enormous red flags.
I’m pleased that the discussion has continued on this topic, even if at times that discussion hasn’t always quite lived up to the reputations of those who have engaged in them. Local education policy discussions do have a tendancy to become rather passionate, and at times heated, so I’ll excuse some of this behavior with the hopes that the intents of some are better than some brief and less than perfect moments. How we educate our kids is something we must get right, and if we’re making mistakes county residents need to press for changes. The worst alternative, which is the choice in far too many places, is complacency and disengagement. We’re far from that, thankfully.
So come on out on the twenty first and lend your voice, or at least come and listen so you can understand what all the debate is about. If you want to bone up on the Math Investigations program and understand why so many county residents are concerned, go to the Prince William County Education Reform Blog for some extensive discussion.
NOTE: The January 21st school board meeting will be at Edward L. Kelly Leadership Center, located at 14715 Bristow Rd., Manassas, VA 20112 (directions here) at 7:00 PM rather than the school board meeting room in Independent Hill. The school board still requires you to either notify the clerk by e-mail at pwcsclerk@pwcs.edu by noon the day of the meeting, or sign up on the list at the entrance to the meeting before 7:00 PM. If you think you’re going to attend, I would suggest e-mailing the clerk just in case you might want to speak, whether you actually intend to do so or not. It’s a dumb rule, but you don’t want to run afoul of it.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
49 Comments
Views: 1035
Loading ...
As if I need more evidence that this program is failing our children, the COGAT test scores came home last week and while my 3rd grader scored above the 85% on both verbal and non-verbal sections, he scored in the 60’s on quantitative. Don’t allow the school board to throw good money after bad and sacrifice our children’s education because they can’t admit they made a mistake with Math Investigations. Plenty of people have been taken by a glossy brochure and a good sales pitch, what they do now is what is important and what registered voters are watching!
An “opt-in” program sounds all well and good on paper, but in reality it will be a nightmare.
Here’s what those who support an opt-in program are saying. First, they will use existing texts. Great. It’s nice to know we won’t be paying to two sets of math books. Ah, but we will be. What about replacement texts? What about books that become worn? And that says nothing of the in-service training that will need to be provided for teachers and the continuing ed costs of supporting dual tracks. And what about the information nights, mailings, etc., that will be needed to explain to parents about this dual-track program, how it works, when to make selections, etc.? Even proponents acknowledge that a dual-track program will take some work (and, while not stated, money to install since none of the things they acknowledge must be done come free).
But fine, let’s say that all really works out as well as proponents of this plan think, and it doesn’t cost one cent more (ha!).
My bigger concern is for the children. A certain percentage will obviously opt for the “traditional” program while another percentage will opt for MI. My gut says that a significant portion of the population won’t make a selection and will say “we don’t care which program, just teach our kids math.” Those who support the dual-track say that’s fine, they can be used to “fill out” either class. Well, that’s a problem for a couple of reasons.
One, logistics. Here’s a word problem for you. Solve using any method you’d like. Let’s say a school has 100 2nd graders with 4 second grade classes. Out of that 100, 34 opt for traditional and 40 opt for MI. That leaves 26 in the toss-up category. Since MI is the County’s preferred curriculum, let’s assume the County will try to put as many “undecideds” in MI as it can. So, how do you split up the classes? Do you have one class of 32 and 3 classes of 22 students? What do you think the supporters of traditional math will be complaining about then (hint: it doesn’t take an algorithm to figure out they’ll say they’re being unfairly punished with larger class sizes). And this scenario assumes that math choice is the only determinant when forming a class. What about ESOL populations, gifted students, gender balance, and special ed considerations (which are all taken into account when creating class rosters each year).
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that instead of the scenario above, 16 “undecideds” are put in the traditional track while 10 go MI, leading to four classes of 25 (two “traditional, two MI).
That leads to point two, continuity from year to year.
The next year, these 100 students are third graders. But a few have moved away and few new students are added, so now there are 115 students and five classes. Will parents get to choose which program each year or will they be locked into one program for the duration of their child’s schooling? Let’s say they get to choose each year. So now, 42 choose traditional and 45 choose MI leaving 28 “undecideds.” With 5 classes, there should be 23 per class, so there are two traditional classes and 3 MI classes. Last year, there were 50 “traditional” slots and 50 MI slots. Now there are 46 “traditional” slots and 69 MI slots. The potential then exists for 4 students who were in the “traditional” program last year to now be in MI. The MI curriculum is carefully sequenced and does differ from the traditional curriculum in pacing and when certain things are covered. Students who are switched back and forth between tracks will suffer. Are they to be considered “acceptable losses”? Curriculums, traditional or otherwise, are selected for a reason. They provide continuity from one grade to the next and build on prior knowledge.
What is interesting to note is how the rhetoric from those opposed to MI on this debate has changed. Last year at this time, the hue and cry was for the complete rejection of MI and its removal from our schools (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012300029.html and http://www.examiner.com/a-1203769~Prince_William_County_parents_want_math_program_ended.htmld). As time has passed and it has become more apparent that MI is here to stay, the tact of those opposed to the program has morphed from demanding its removal to acknowledging that the program has merit for some but not them.
Seems more like a calculated retreat than reasoned compromise.
If we can’t get rid of investigations for now, at least we can get a real math education for our own kids. My son is very good about having to do math lessons at home but it’s not really fair.
The schools are failing him by not challenging him with this academically weak program.
They are so committed to it that they can’t admit that it is not working so it is up to us.
Please speak out to the school board and demand choice.
Greg: I think you meant “red” flags, not “read” ones. Reading is a hole nother subject
“Students who are switched back and forth between tracks will suffer.”
Turn PW: Then why does the Prince William County math department say that children will have no trouble switching on their website?
From the PWCS website FAQs:
“Will Investigations make it difficult for students to transfer to other “traditional” settings?
Math Office staff has had discussions with teachers and parents who have had experience with Investigations in other school systems. According to them, the reality is that students always bring the traditional algorithms to the classroom (either from home or other school experiences), so the algorithms are not strange to the students. Some students choose to use them—but they are able to understand and compute by multiple methods. Furthermore, the 2008 edition of Investigations has students study the traditional algorithms, with the exception of the traditional algorithm for long division. This has been added to the pacing guide for grade 5 teachers who are currently using Investigations at their school. A student who can reason mathematically can adapt to any algorithm. The greatest complaint reported by former Investigations students was that some traditional mathematics classrooms were “boring”. As discussed in another FAQ, Investigations students are not “behind” their peers. ”
I think the Math Department is debunking your argument. With the old textbooks and the limited number of parents selecting the traditional math, there should be plenty of textbooks to go around including replacement texts.
Have there been any success stories with Math Investigations?
Seems to me that the problem may be with *us* - for instance, we have been moving to the metric system since the 70’s (at least) - but somehow we cannot get there, while other countries (who we look down upon) can change currencies, economic models, political models, etc and still prosper.
With all the kids spending such enormous amounts of time with sports, how much time do they spend doing homework? How much sleep do they get?
Turn PW, why do you care if some parents want to opt in for traditional math? If you want MI for your kids fine, but why would you deny traditional math for mine? What happened to choice? What happened to tolerance for other views? It is no surprise that the MI opposers have changed their rhetoric to one of compromise or retreat, so why would you, of all blue people, be against their request? They can’t change the entire system so they are trying to change what they can for their children. Wouldn’t you do the same thing? Would you be against MI supporters in a traditional math county asking for a MI tract if they felt strongly and the materials and willing teachers were available?
There are teachers at my children’s school who are chomping at the bit to be the traditional tract teacher if this passes. That should tell you something right there. The “nightmare” I see with dual tracts is the what will happen when all the teachers jump ship and want to teach traditional math and there are none left for MI except the suckups who are posturing for administrative positions.
Anon (10:35):
There is a difference between valuing diversity and building balkanized systems. I worry about the wasted (limited) resources going towards supporting dual tracks. I worry about creating two schools within the school. I worry about the redundancy of effort supporting two tracks–from preparing teachers to developing pacing and curriculum guides to delivering appropriate assessments. I worry about the precedence this sets.
What happens when a group unhappy with either MI or the “traditional” text wants to insert, say, Singapore math? Do we add a third track?
What happens in language arts when a group says they want to return to more tradition language arts programs? Do we offer dual tracks there?
Should we have an “intelligent design” track alongside an “evolution” track in science? Where does it end?
You ask if I would have a problem with MI parents rallying for dual tracks if the roles were reversed. Yes, I would. While I personally don’t have a problem with MI and actually appreciate its approach to mathematics education, I think there is an overall harm in balkanizing the way a core subject matter is taught. I actually agree with “traditional” math proponents in that I believe there is a place for traditional US algorithms in the elementary classroom and that a much better job could and should be done supplementing the MI curriculum with traditional algorithms *once students have shown a mastery of the concept made simpler by the algorithm.* I don’t agree, however, that the answer is to set up multiple programs for teaching the same subject in the same schools.
The idea of dual tracks was put forward as a stop-gap measure for a few years until the rest of you wake up to the damage investigations is doing to your kids.
A board member claimed that Investigations was only ever thrown out for political reasons; rubbish. It was thrown out of Utah and Washington states for failing. The only reason it is retained is political.
As for switching tracks, only allow it at the start of the year or by teacher/principle review; Johnny is too slow to keep up with traditional math; he needs the extra explanations that investigations provides.
And it would not cost more because we already have the books and it would save MI expense$
I support an alternate track because I do believe that parents deserve a choice in whether their children are enrolled in controversial programs, like Investigations. Yes, there will be logistical issues, but I believe our teachers are more than capable of managing them.
Regarding the issues Turn PW Blue mentioned - lets look at each in turn an discuss them.
” First, they will use existing texts. Great. It’s nice to know we won’t be paying to two sets of math books. Ah, but we will be. What about replacement texts? What about books that become worn?”
Worn SFAW books will have to be replaced, just like worn Investigations books will have to be replaced. PWCS has a policy regarding replacement of worn texts and budgets dollars specifically for that purpose. Furthermore, unless 100% of the student population enrolls in the “traditional option” and every textbook currently gathering dust in storage is placed into service, there will be a pool of available books to select from before new replacement texts have to be purchased. There will also be savings from the reduced purchases of Investigations materials which could be targeted for purchase of replacement texts.
“And that says nothing of the in-service training that will need to be provided for teachers and the continuing ed costs of supporting dual tracks.”
In service training is a necessary part of every teacher’s professional life. Instead of holding one in service training session which every teacher attends that covers Investigations there would be two sessions - one on Investigations and one on the traditional option. With the exception of some of the newer teachers, our teachers have all taught under both the Investigations and the old traditional programs. Imagine how beneficial those in service sessions could become if the shackles are taken off our teachers and they are allowed to collaborate and openly discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each program and collaborate to select the best materials to meet their students unique needs. Teachers might even take some value away from the in-service instead of looking on them as a necessary evil.
“And what about the information nights, mailings, etc., that will be needed to explain to parents about this dual-track program, how it works, when to make selections, etc.?”
Ever heard of math nights? Instead of spending the evening marketing Investigations the nights could be a open session with local school administrators discussing the alternate program and communicating alternatives.
“Even proponents acknowledge that a dual-track program will take some work (and, while not stated, money to install since none of the things they acknowledge must be done come free).”
No one ever said that we could just flip a switch and voila the program would be up and running and perfect. It will take effort from parents, teachers, school administrators, and central office staff. Implementing Investigations has taken work and while it meets the needs of some students it clearly isn’t meeting the needs of all students - somewhere between 25 to 50% of the students based on the math survey. Don’t those students deserve the same commitment from the school system?
As for class enrollment, yes, there will be logistical challenges. But you seem to want to just give up with out even bothering to gauge interest in such a program. We may find that at some schools there is 0 interest in a traditional program while at other schools 50% of the parents are interested. As classes are sorted out we may well end up with one class that has 22 students in it and another that has 28 - or one with 20 and one with 30. In schools where fewer than 10 parents express interest in a traditional program we may need to develop other ideas to support them - I’m quite sure that each school is capable of arriving at solutions that meeting their students needs and parent’s expectations. We won’t know any of that until we ask.
And no, I would not use non-respondents as a “filler” for either program. I’d argue that parents need to opt into the traditional program and if they choose not to opt into the program then their children will remain in the Investigations program. I’d view the traditional program as a program of choice and that parents who choose to enroll their children in the program do so accepting that their children will be taught with old textbooks and that their children may have to do work over the summer to transition to and prepare for the new program.
Transition to the traditional program will pose a challenge, but certainly not an impossible one. A 4th grader taught nothing but Investigations will find it difficult to transition to a traditional program where mastery of certain processes is expected, just like a child taught under a traditional program would find it just as difficult to transition to an Investigations program. Teachers will have to contrast the skills gathered under the Investigations program with those expected under the SFAW program and select materials to remediate where necessary. All of that is expected.
Like I said before, I would envision the program as one of choice meaning that if parents choose to enroll their children in the traditional program then they accept that they may well have to do some sort of home based program over the summer to prepare their children for their classes in the fall. And it won’t just be a one time shot - we may well find that very few parents are interested in a traditional program in Kindergarten and 1st grade but that the number of interested parents increases as the children move to higher grades. At larger schools we may have one 1st grade traditional class and 3 or 4 traditional 4th grade classes. A transition plan will have to be in place to allow children to crossover at each grade level - and it will need to go both ways because we may find that some students aren’t thriving in the traditional program and moving them back to the traditional program would be preferable.
Yes, the rhetoric behind the argument has changed because we live in the real world. The facts are that some children are thriving under the Investigations program while others are not. The “one size fits all” program we have now fails a certain percentage of the population. Substituting this program with another “one size fits all program” will only repeat that mistake. Offering two alternatives - one based on Investigations and another based on a traditional program - offers the greatest probability that all students needs will be met.
Seems to me like offering two alternatives is the reasoned compromise while steadfastly clinging to a commitment to a “one size fits all” approach is unreasonable.
Wasn’t the genesis of MI our age discrimator, contract manipulator Steve Walts? Has anyone FOIAd Walts’ calendar to determine his meetings/contacts with the MI vendor?
PW keeps referring to some nightmare that giving kids and parents a “choice” would supposedly create. The “choice” is between a failed lefty koolaid drinkers math program (TERC) which has been an abysmal failure everywhere it has been tried and a real math program which actually teaches kids MATH! The only nightmare I see is the investigations program which is hurting our kids, especially the girls for whom it was supposed to help. End the nightmare now.
It’s noteworthy that when choice is advantageous to the libtards, it’s exalted. When it’s not, it’s decried as Balkanization.
You’re getting a bit off track; this has nothing to do with political affiliations and all to do with saving our kids math education.
The people opposed to Investigations really do come from all corners of the political spectrum.
The idea of choice came up because the board would not consider throwing out MI at this point; it’s a compromise.
When a math Ph.D says the following about your schools math program you know there’s a problem:
“I am not really here today to talk to the Board, but to the parents. If your child goes to a school that uses TERC Investigations, you should understand that it means your child’s school has abdicated its responsibility to teach your child mathematics. By doing so, the responsibility now rests with the parents. Good luck.”
This gentleman, Dr Stephen Wilson, said those words on June 11, 2008 in his testimony before the Frederick MD school boards. Before anyone gets too excited, he’d reviewed version 2 of TERC, the same version PWC is using.
Dr Wilson also helped re-write the math standards in Washington state when they realized they needed help. I wish the schools had asked him to kick off their last text book adoption..
“for instance, we have been moving to the metric system since the 70’s (at least) - but somehow we cannot get there”
We’re there, at least as far as anything more technically involved than the average customer gets into.
Gone, for example, are the days when you needed only a set of SAE (standard) sockets to work on a domestic vehicle.
Brian Leeper,
we are not there - no way near it. To work on an automobile, you need two sets of sockets - SAE and Metric (that is not there). We should be with the rest of the world, but we are not, we are behind.
What is the reason that the ‘average customer’ (whoever they are) has not moved to the metric system?
PW Blue said at 11:08 am:
“I worry about the wasted (limited) resources going towards supporting dual tracks. I worry about creating two schools within the school. I worry about the redundancy of effort supporting two tracks–from preparing teachers to developing pacing and curriculum guides to delivering appropriate assessments.”
I worry about characterizing resources spent to support different learning styles as “wasted”.
The schools are a monopoly - they get my resources whether I support them or not. Even if I pull my children and send them to private school or home school I still have to pay my share to the public schools. Shouldn’t they then at least be accountable to those who pay their way? If I as a taxpayer and parents am dissatisfied with the program of study the county has selected don’t I have a right to demand change? And if enough other parents are equally concerned doesn’t the school system have a responsibility to respond?
“I worry about the precedence this sets.”
I worry about the precedent set by those who oppose parental choice. For years studies have demonstrated that the greatest indicator of academic success for children is parental involvement. Schools bemoan uninvolved parents and blame lack of parental interest on poor performance and declining interest in school. Yet when parents demonstrate an interest in their child’s education and demand accountability all of the sudden that changes to sit down and shut up. When did the schools become so tyrannical?
Parents deserve a say in how their children are educated and with what materials - especially when it comes to controversial programs. The school system knew Investigations was controversial when they selected it. The resulting outcry should have been expected and the school board deserves credit for recognizing that parents deserve a say in how their children are taught.
“What happens when a group unhappy with either MI or the “traditional” text wants to insert, say, Singapore math? Do we add a third track?”
The opposition to Investigations isn’t based on the text - it’s the entire program - from how the subject is taught to it’s content to the complete commitment to the program that expected that’s of concern. Investigations demands that teachers, students, and parents follow the program and do as they are told. Departing from the established script is strongly discouraged and even blamed, if the information on the PWCS web site and interviews with PWCS staff are to be believed, for the less than remarkable test scores.
SFAW, while it has it’s shortcomings, is not nearly as inflexible. Adding materials to it from other sources or taking material away is perfectly acceptable. Under the traditional program teachers would be empowered to select material from whatever source they believe best meets their students needs - even from Singapore.
“What happens in language arts when a group says they want to return to more tradition language arts programs? Do we offer dual tracks there?”
Depends on the program we follow. Unlike our math program, as I understand it our language arts program doesn’t discourage parents from working with their children at home to supplement their learning at school and doesn’t demand complete adherence. While I can understand that there are gaps in our language arts program and areas where improvement is desirable, those areas can be addressed with additional work at home or support by tutors. Investigations has a totally different philosophical approach and demands complete devotion.
“Should we have an “intelligent design” track alongside an “evolution” track in science? Where does it end?”
If there’s enough interest in it, why not? That doesn’t mean we replace the current program with an intelligent design program, but that we offer our students a choice in what they learn and how they learn it.
“You ask if I would have a problem with MI parents rallying for dual tracks if the roles were reversed. Yes, I would. While I personally don’t have a problem with MI and actually appreciate its approach to mathematics education, I think there is an overall harm in balkanizing the way a core subject matter is taught. I actually agree with “traditional” math proponents in that I believe there is a place for traditional US algorithms in the elementary classroom and that a much better job could and should be done supplementing the MI curriculum with traditional algorithms *once students have shown a mastery of the concept made simpler by the algorithm.* I don’t agree, however, that the answer is to set up multiple programs for teaching the same subject in the same schools.”
If what you describe were true then there wouldn’t be any controversy. The problem is that Investigations isn’t designed to be adapted as you describe. Investigations is designed to be followed to the letter as it is designed. Teaching the standard algorithms with more depth and before the program stipulates runs counter to the philosophy that underlies the program.
That’s why so many parents are demanding choice and why I’d hope the schools would support it.
“To work on an automobile, you need two sets of sockets - SAE and Metric (that is not there).”
Depends on the age of the vehicle. The only SAE hardware in the 1995 Ford Contour I used to have were the oxygen sensors, the sparkplugs, and possibly the radio antenna. (Try to figure out why the oxygen sensor, having been invented by Bosch, a German company, first used on a Volvo, IIRC, has a 7/8″ hex head. They all do).
Every other bolt on the engine and body on that car is metric. Even the oil filter uses a metric thread, while a lot of cars still in production, particularly Toyota, use an SAE thread oil filter.
My 1988 Mustang GT is a different story. It’s a mix of SAE and metric. (Having been based on a design dating back to 1979 might have a bit to do with it).
But, in my experience, most any domestic vehicle designed since the early 90s will be all metric except for the few things I mentioned, which seem to be industry conventions. Well, that and tires. For some reason tire diameter is always measured in inches, even in other countries. But tire width is always in millimeters.
“What is the reason that the ‘average customer’ (whoever they are) has not moved to the metric system?”
Do they need it? What benefits would it provide to post roads in km/h vs. MPH, or having weather forecasts that provide temperatures in centigrade instead of fahrenheit?
I can tell you one place where it would be a disadvantage–thermostats. The difference between 25 and 26C is about 1.8F, so a thermostat that’s set for centigrade and only allows you to set the temp to the nearest whole number (which is almost all of them) doesn’t give you as much fine control as one set for fahrenheit.
For those places where switching to metric has provided a cost benefit to industry, the switch was made, long ago.
I have a friend who is a Physics Professor at Virginia Tech and he has told me many times that American freshmen coming into his class, only about 10% even suspect any concepts of basic math, where as the foreign students are ready to hit the ground running. He maintains those foreign students, (especially the Asians), have indicated they were taught math the way we used to teach it some forty years ago. I would think the teachers would query the universities and try to find out what our students are missing rather than toy around with one fuzzy concept one after another.
Brian - thank you. I think you proved my point.
It seems to me that your point was that “We should be with the rest of the world, but we are not, we are behind.”
In science and industry, which is where it really matters, we are. Did you know that, in the USA, roads are engineered in metric? I’ve already given you the example of domestic vehicles which are as metric as their foreign competition, if not more so. (Rest assured that a Toyota has an oxygen sensor with a 7/8″ hex head and sparkplugs with 5/8″ hex heads too, because these are worldwide industry standards).
As far as applying metric where the average person will more readily see it, how about speed limits?
There is nothing preventing VDOT, or any other DOT, from posting speed limits in KM/h–the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices has allowed this for years. That no DOT has done this, to my knowledge, seems to indicate that it is of limited benefit to do so. (Let’s not suggest that it is because cars have speedometers that don’t read in KM/h–practically all cars still on the road do).
Greg,
Thank you for highlighting this issue on your blog. There are only 8 days left to reach as many PWC parents as we can and this medium will certainly help. Many parents probably have no idea that the school board is going to discuss this topic which affects their children so directly and thereby miss the opportunity to impart their opinion.
I have been reading about this curriculum and seeing it first-hand through my daughter’s school work, PWC school math nights and presentations for the last 2 years. My wife (a former math teacher) and I (an engineer) are shocked by its lack of rigor, slow pace and extreme, restrictive reliance on a single pedagogical philosophy.
We now look forward with hope that the school board might provide us the chance to choose a traditional math class for our daughter, which can support and strengthen the math we teach her at home. Concerns about multiple tracks are just a red herring. After all, multiple tracks existed just a few years ago when MI was fully taught in 121 classrooms (and parts were used in several hundred more) countywide before its formal adoption. If we could do it then, we can do it now.
Thanks again for helping to spread the word!
….but really, wouldn’t it make more sense to discuss the ability to “opt in” to the MI program, rather than opting in to traditional math?
I no longer have school-age children, but having spent a military career, I know what it must be like to take children from a PWC “Math Investigations” program and move anywhere in the country/world to a traditional math program. Now, what a hurdle for a child to overcome THAT woulld be….
While MI may be good for students with special needs, I’m concerned that across-the-board, this program severely limits the early interactive help that parents can, and should provide. Parental involvement, particularly at the very beginning of a public schooling experience, can fill-in and provide that missing link between parent and teacher…not a criticism of the teacher at all…just reinforcement of Mom and Dad’s at-home help.
I wonder what would happen to MI (and teacher “pay for performance”) in the public schools if we had a voucher system that would enable ANY parent to send their children to private schools.
That’s a good idea - opt in to MI but not one the board will go for at this time.
We are making the most of it under difficult political conditions to try to help the kids.
I don’t know why the math department is so convinced that MI is the best thing since sliced bread, but that is what we are up against.
Lets hope the board agrees to a compromise and then the results will speak for themselves.
By the way, if any of you from Prince William County reading this want to help, please sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/123math/petition.html
and email the board members requesting choice but please be polite..
http://www.pwcs.edu/admin/schboard/all_members_email.html
Thanks..
Freedom said “….but really, wouldn’t it make more sense to discuss the ability to “opt in” to the MI program, rather than opting in to traditional math?”
That would be wonderful,but is not reflective of the reality in the PWC public schools. The math department and a couple of board members (Lattin and Richardson to be specific) have thrown their complete support and stated their professional reputations on how wonderful Investigations is and the program they approved is Investigations.
As a result a traditional program would be an innovative program which parents deliberately choose knowing that the program they have chosen for their children is not the “default” program the school board approved. Had the school board approved a traditional text and parents requested an alternate program based on Investigations then what you suggest would be more realistic and viable.
“While MI may be good for students with special needs,”
I’m not so sure it is good for students with special needs because of it’s dependence on group think and verbal and written communication. Some children with IEP’s are being taught traditional math because they can’t manage the Investigations style lessons.
“I’m concerned that across-the-board, this program severely limits the early interactive help that parents can, and should provide. Parental involvement, particularly at the very beginning of a public schooling experience, can fill-in and provide that missing link between parent and teacher…not a criticism of the teacher at all…just reinforcement of Mom and Dad’s at-home help.”
I totally agree! that’s one of my biggest concerns and gripes with Investigations - because the program demands complete devotion to it’s methods parents who choose to fill the gaps at home by supplementing are told that they are undermining their child’s learning and that the processes they teach their children are dangerous (and that comes directly from the PWC and TERC web site). An unfortunate side effect of the program is that it’s creates such an adversarial and confrontational relationship between parents and teachers.
“I wonder what would happen to MI (and teacher “pay for performance”) in the public schools if we had a voucher system that would enable ANY parent to send their children to private schools.”
Some private schools do use MI, though many pick and choose lessons instead of doing full Investigations like PWC. I suspect it would vary by school and that parents would then choose the school whose academic program better aligned with their child’s learning style.
And what I wouldn’t give for vouchers!!!!
Monster Mom said, “…a couple of board members (Lattin and Richardson to be specific) have thrown their complete support and stated their professional reputations on how wonderful Investigations is…”
Well now, shame on me….I guess I failed to consider the professional reputation of Lattin/Richardson…with THAT kind of endorsement, how in the world could ANYONE even THINK about opposing an experimental educational program?
However, Math Investigations is just one part of an even larger issue. Whether it’s a matter of social reengineering (through a skewed presentation of history and the social sciences) or the implementation of an experimental teaching method (which is too late, determined to be ineffective) children in schools today are being molded as adults and leaders of tomorrow. Our future, our childrens’ future, and even the future of our country depends upon WHAT and HOW our children are being taught in school today…and for that reason, the government MUST maintain a monopoly over the mold.
For some reason, I believe that school board elections will become far more interesting in the future than they have been in the past.
Oh, I expect they next election to become VERY interesting freedom. I understand that the two School Board members who are vehemently supporting MI (whom I now know to be Lattin and Richardson) “…lashed out Wednesday at the parents who’ve dared to continue to speak at the Board meetings in defense of all learners.” That’s no way to treat constituents, particularly over a program for which there is overwhelming evidence from school systems that have tried and rejected it that it isn’t worth defending. It shows very poor judgment on their part, in my opinion. I daresay that, if I currently had children in the school system, I’d be out recruiting in Gainesville and Occoquan Districts right now as I did once before.
The problem is, not enough disgruntled constituents do anything about it. email makes it so easy; they may ignore it but if they get enough of it, it scares them into action.
We are far enough away from the next election with the short attention span of voters, but if they blow it, there may not be another chance for them to get on the right side of the fence.
The NSF is still pouring money into grants to push MI; I don’t know if the new administration will do anything but it’s very hard for educators to resist the latest trend.
After they have messed up, it’s hard to admit it.
Choice in mathematics lets them put the responsibility on the parents to chose what’s best. I can’t see why they wouldn’t want to get off the hook..
AWCheney and Freedom - I am totally with you. I think the elections are going to be very interesting. Math is just the tip of the iceberg. A 3rd grade child in my neighborhood had a test Mali culture a few days ago. I asked her if she knew who Patrick Henry was, or why we fought the Revolution, or what made the Bill of Rights important. She had not clue who Patrick Henry was, knew nothing about the Revolution or why it was fought, and didn’t even know what the Bill of Rights was but she could tell me the people of Mali eat and live the way they do.
Trust me, math is part of a much larger whole which must be addressed by concerned parents and citizens like yourselves.
Ed said, “Lets hope the board agrees to a compromise and then the results will speak for themselves.”
Oh really? Should they go dual-track, just what kind of comparative support do you think the “poor step-child” (traditional math program) would receive? Don’t ya dare be callin’ MY baby ugly, ya hear?
Freedom - that’s a good question and one for which an easy answer is not readily available. In lieu of the level of support for Investigations from central office staff, if I had to hazard a guess I’d say very little support from central administration. I not sure that’s a bad thing!
I do have faith in our teachers. They do a heck of a lot for the kids in this community. Yes, there are some bad apples, but by and large the teachers I’ve met are hard working and committed to their students.
I expect that the program will be run and managed independently at each school. That means that parents will need to be involved in the design and implementation of the program at their local schools.
Gotta love this - at my child’s school in the morning announcements the Principal told the kids that their parents would be voting to take Math Investigations away from them, that everyone at the school loves Math Investigations, and that they all needed to go home and tell their parents how much they love Math Investigations.
I’m pretty shocked at her lack unethical behavior in doing this. The debate is about policy - curriculum to be specific - and it shouldn’t involve our children. For her to try to pit my kids against me is just unacceptable from someone who is supposed to have the children’s best interest at heart..
And it’s a downright lie!
We are only asking for an opt-in to a more rigorous math program based around the standard algorithm.
This shows what sort of people we are up against.
Absolutely outrageous!!! …and I just wonder where the principal came up with THAT as a wonderful thing to tell the students….?? THAT in itself needs to be an issue at the next school board meeting!! Absolutely unbelieveable –”Listen up kids, your parents don’t (are too stupid to) understand what you and I both know is best for you….so, you, my little darlings need to go home and tell your Mom and Dad how it REALLY is.”
Ya know what Monster Mom, as far as I’m concerned, Math Investigations MAY turn out to be the greatest thing EVER! However, if it IS so great, we’ve done without it for so long that it won’t hurt to wait another few years until this program matures and “proves itself” before you experiment on OUR chlidren.
I don’t even have school-age children anymore, but that doesn’t mean that I have no interest in what and how our children (your children and my grandchildren) are being taught — our country tomorrow will be as our children are being taught today — and the wrong people know that all too well!!!
I’m pretty well blown away by her statements as well. Way to try to pit my kids against me and make it seem like I’m trying to take something from them. And I highly doubt my kids school was the only school where that message was delivered.
It’s funny - this is the same sort of intimidation we’re hearing about with teachers. The message to our teachers to either support Investigations or keep your mouths shut has been heard loud and clear.
You know what really irks me? This is just a stinking math curriculum - 2 + 2 =4. For goodness sake why does it have to be so nasty! All I want is for my kids to get a chance to learn real math. I’ll even go with the old textbooks rather than demand new books. I don’t want to take anything away from anyone. If a parents thinks Investigations is the cats meow then their kids can stay in the Investigations classes but if a parent chooses a traditional math education for their their child then why would anyone oppose it?
This whole thing is just amazing!
It sure IS amazing….and the only reason that I can imagine people opposing dual track programs is that the division of resources between the two would perhaps/probably weaken BOTH tracks.
Oh, I fully understand your frustration…and when the school board members begin “betting their professional reputation on things,” just remember that by the time their experiment is proven to be a failure and our children suffer the consequences, they’ll be long gone, out of the picture and innocent — just as it happened in California with reading.
Should you go to the school board meeting, be wary of attempts to intimidate or humiliate:
1. “So Ms X, I understand that you’re opposed to modern math….have you been a professional educator for a long time”?
2. “2 + 2 = 4 may have been good enough for you, but today’s children deserve better than the old fashioned things we had.”
3. “Why memorize math tables when we have calculators and computers to take care of that mundane stuff”?
4. “Trust me, and don’t worry about it….we have the well-being of your child in our hearts and minds.”
4. “I can’t understand why you oppose it when the children…oh, the children just LOVE it”!!
Ever wonder why, with such parental opposition to MI, the school board continues to support it so strenuously? …sounds like an experiment “gone bad” to me.
This is incredible that the school board could be condoning behavior like this!
Are all the school board members supporting Math Investigations? Do any of them have children in school or are all their children grown?
I’m with ya! I’ve always that that when people have such a fanatical devotion to something that they are willing to compromise every principle they have, then there’s something amiss. With this math program - math of all things - we’ve got Principals using kids as pawns, central office staff and school board members overtly intimidating parents, and our teachers - dear god our poor teachers - are getting so much pressure from every corner. All for a math program.
It seems like the fight is more over someone’s bloated ego than what’s right for our kids. The program works for some but not for others. An alternate track won’t take anything away from anyone but it will give something to those kids whose needs aren’t being met.
I find it amazing that a concept as innocuous as that would be met with such vitriol.
I would put it into the lap of the School Superintendent who introduced the program in PWC…after it was so unsuccessful in Greece, NY where he had previously introduced it. As far as the School Board members are concerned, I believe THAT is the very expensive mistake (appointment of this Superintendent) that they’re so defensive about.
…and in so doing, AWC, you put it right back “…into the lap of…” the school board. Isn’t it amazing what $250K per year will bring? …and the issues are sooooooooo difficult that he just can’t seem to figure out how to reward achievement vs. mediocrity. Pshaaaaaaaw…:(
“…and in so doing, AWC, you put it right back “…into the lap of…” the school board.”
As was my intent freedom. I’ve been wondering about the judgment of our current School Board ever since they hired him, and particularly the extreme defensiveness that one experiences from them whenever the suggestion that they might have made a mistake arises. Such a level of defensiveness always make me wonder.
Freedom and AW I agree you that responsibility for the decision rests with the school board and conversations about the program belong at that level, especially as central office staff have made it abundantly clear to teachers that they must follow the program to the letter.
However, one point to clarify is that the Superintendent did not bring Investigations to PWC - math department staff did. When he was hired it was already implemented in full in about 97 classroom and 11 different schools. Yes, it was officially selected as the county wide program after the super was hired AND his statements about how successful it had been in Greece were cited by several members of the school board as sufficient to convince them to throw their support for it, but - he did not personally bring it to PWC.
Well, that would explain the extreme defensiveness Monster_Mom. One or more “geniuses” on the School Board found a comparable genius in Greece, NY who was as enamored with Math Investigations as he or she was. Wouldn’t it be ironic if MI was the deal-maker for Walts, despite his poor results and exorbitant spending during his tenure in Greece…not to mention the investigation for misappropriation of funds on his watch.
Newletter came home last week telling parents to start teaching their children the basic multiplication facts at home. I guess this is the PWCS supplementation plan to fill some of the many holes in the Investigations Math program…
PWCS Board Members - any of them have children in this math experiment?
Answer’s I think - not many. Believe Chairman Mr. Johns and Mr. Trenum (Brentsville?) both have younger children in PWCS. The other 6 on the board — no children in pwcs elem schools. The most vocal board members (if you watch the board meetings - very lively gentlemen) have no children in pwcs; Mr. Lattin’s kids go to Fairfax Cty HS (Thomas Jefferson) and Mr. Richardson does not appear to have any children in the pw schools.
Fascinating that they’re so sold on an experiment with other parents’ children
I believe Mr Trenum is the only board member with children young enough to be affected by the program. I’m not sure what the thinks of it - or any of the others except for Mr. Lattin and Mr. Richardson for that matter. Maybe we’ll find out tonight…..