Everyday Math (Again)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the nationalities of students in the PhD programs in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and engineering in US graduate schools? Do you think this may correlate with where US students stand vis a vis the globe in Mathematics education? What other "sweeping" data do you need to support the claim that EDM is useless.

Evidence that students who are young enough to have done EDM would be more helpful than information about students who went through elementary school before EDM was published.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wondered what happened in GB over that period -- their improvement was really striking.

Good question. I just searched, but did not find much that was useful.
http://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-School-Mathematics-Traditional-Mathematical/dp/0805840052 (book comparing traditional vs. reform methods at schools in GB)
http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/zhang.pdf (study of China's math curriculum -- too vague for me to tell if it's reform or traditional)
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ar9/WilsonReview25July.html (interesting review of book about Math Wars in California)
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-6679682.html (link to beginning of an Economist article that seems to suggest GB uses reform math approach -- text below)
"MIDDLE-AGED fuddy-duddies who are not teachers find modern maths hard to fathom, and can never understand why their children spend so little time learning their 12-times table. A year ago the 53-yearold education secretary, Mr Kenneth Baker, appeared to be on a collision course with the educational establishment over his plan to let parents know precisely what their sons and daughters learn under the new national curriculum, by testing children at seven, I 1, 14 and 16. A return to mindless rote learning, grumbled teachers; the restoration of long division to its rightful place on the nation's blackboards, hoped traditionalists."

[Anonymous]

Yup, looks like GB has "reform" math and switched wholesale/nationwide in 1999 (which would impact 4th and 8th grade test scores in 2007):

http://cmslive.curriculum.edu.au/leader/default.asp?id=28305&issueID=11875

Here's the math curriculum:

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/uploads/Mathematics%201999%20programme%20of%20study_tcm8-12059.pdf?return=/key-stages-1-and-2/subjects/mathematics

p. 16 has a useful summary of what the approach is to teaching early math -- similar to EDM in its emphasis on explanation, graphing and other forms of spatial representation, etc.

And here's their online enrichment website:

http:///nrich.maths.org/public

[Anonymous]

When I started reading this thread, I did not have much opinion on different math curricula (or even know much about them). Now I'm starting to feel pretty pro-EDM.

[Anonymous]

The main issue with it, really, I think, is that you need teachers who really understand math. It's a demanding curriculum from an instructional POV and parental support may be limited given how different the approach is from the one most parents encountered at the same age.

I can help DC with many things, but other things (especially geometry and some of the techniques like the lattice) elude me. I'm delighted (quel surprise -- I'm one of the major link-posters in this thread) to see so much work with data sets at an early age and the teaching of simple useful formats for displaying/analyzing info (e.g. stem and leaf diagrams) that I didn't encounter until grad school. I also appreciate the narrative and problem-solving (and setting up) emphasis as well as all of the work on estimation, approximation, and prediction. Not so keen on the spiral.

And I've been surprised by the claim that EDM makes algebra more difficult. I feel like I've been seeing pre-algebra in the works from a very early stage. The whole number machine thing (where the kids are given a series of inputs and their respective outputs and told to deduce the rule) as well as the emphasis on the mathematical equivalent of synonyms and other forms of substitution strike me as work that will make algebra seem quite natural and rational rather than abstract and pointless.

In the end, it's a packaged curriculum, not a bible and I expect DC's school to edit and supplement. That's why I'm paying them the big bucks, LOL -- I want to see the professional and experiential judgment of smart well-trained teachers brought to bear on the question of how best to teach this material to these kids.

[Anonymous]

http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=6571 is a fun problem.

[Anonymous]

especially if you use the manipulable little cards at the bottom of the page -- click on full screen to give yourself more room to move them around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=6571 is a fun problem.

Cool. I think there's only one possible solution (not counting reversal of order).
17
8
1
15
10
6
3
13
12
4
5
11
14
2
7
9
16

[Anonymous]

Seems to me the argument is not about EDM, but about reform math.

EDM is not stellar. They have take resposibility for some screw ups, remember "if math were a color".

I don't really care. My kids will do well enough on the SAT, and will probably not go into math.
So it really does not matter that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fields Medals:
US 11 pop 304M
UK 7 pop 60M
France 9 pop 61M
We aren't that good in math, we won none in 2006.

If anything, I guess that's an indictment of the traditional math approach popular in the 1970s and 1980s?

Sixties and seventies was new math.

[Anonymous]

That's what DD (middle schooler home sick today) got as well. Re the reasoning behind unique solution -- wouldn't it be that the two highest numbers have to be on the ends because there's only one possible adjacent number for each (given that 25 is the only square either can add to -- they're too large to be used to hit 16 and the other numbers are all too small to create a pair that hits 36).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sixties and seventies was new math.

Sibs and I all got traditional math in the sixties and seventies (starting elementary school in 1965 (oldest) through 1976 (youngest) and educated in two different/distant states). There's what's trendy and there's what's taught and those can be dramatically different.

[Anonymous]

To the poster who suggested that we find out what kind of learners our kids are, before we decide on supplementing for math: Doesn't it make more sense to put kids in another school where they do use a math curriculum that is appropriate to my child's style of learning, rather than stick it out with EDM (or whatever) and then shell out even more $$ for supplementation because s/he is not getting what s/he needs to know?

Sorry, but I don't buy this argument that it's OK to pay and pay and then pay some more, simply to have every base covered. And don't forget that all of us who have kids in private schools are ALSO paying for our failed public school system. For most of us, there is not an endless stream of funds that we can expend so that our little Johnnies/ Susies willl finally understand something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: From OP:
And I'm interested in the remarks made about people having to supplement math work with tutors, etc. That is another concept that, at this point, I just don't get. I'm sure I'll learn more about it as he progresses, but at this point, all I can say is that with all the $$ we are paying to send him to this private school, if there is EVER any talk about additional paid instruction, simply because the school is using a program that is not up to par, I will be FURIOUS!

I suggest you try to figure out what kind of a learner your child is. Then you may see supplementation as a good thing, and not simply a failure of the school:
- If s/he really likes math, you may feel that supplementation is a great thing. Math kids are sponges and love it; it is sometimes this realization that leads families to supplement.
- Your child may learn better with something other than EDM. That does not mean EDM is terrible, just that your child would be better off with something else. Then you may wish to supplement.

As you can probably see, I think the expectation that "I pay all this money and we still have to supplement" is a little narrow. There may be economic reasons to be furious, but the reasons may have to do with your child. I also don't see supplementation as a great refuge for over-anxious parents. But that is another story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who suggested that we find out what kind of learners our kids are, before we decide on supplementing for math: Doesn't it make more sense to put kids in another school where they do use a math curriculum that is appropriate to my child's style of learning, rather than stick it out with EDM (or whatever) and then shell out even more $$ for supplementation because s/he is not getting what s/he needs to know?

Sorry, but I don't buy this argument that it's OK to pay and pay and then pay some more, simply to have every base covered. And don't forget that all of us who have kids in private schools are ALSO paying for our failed public school system. For most of us, there is not an endless stream of funds that we can expend so that our little Johnnies/ Susies willl finally understand something.

Not the PP you're responding to, but I think her response makes sense if you (a) don't assume that supplementation means expense. School is never (or should never be) the only place your kid learns. Supplementation can mean playing games or letting the kid balance the check book or shifting some of his/her computer time over to the NRICH site and (b) remember that the scenario presented here (and I don't know if you're OP or not) was one in which there was no evidence that the math program wasn't working for the DC. (Just a question about how you'd know if you weren't a math major and is EDM inherently substandard.).

If, however, someone is in a situation where their kid's math program is clearly not working, then the supplementation vs. change of school issue comes down to what concrete alternatives do you have and what are your priorities. If nothing's working really well for DC at your current school, then exit is a no-brainer. But if your DC is happy there, has a great group of friends, and is flourishing academically in other areas (and you can tell math will never be DC's passion), then supplementation would be a sensible approach. It might also be a sensible approach if the other schools you're interested in turn out to have pretty similar math programs. (The three obvious candidates for our DC all use EDM -- as a PP mentioned, that's not surprising if you like progressive schools, though one of the schools in question is a public school.) No school is always a perfect fit for any individual kid. So you decide what you can live with, what you can't, what's easily fixable outside of school, and what the school has to do right.

Certainly math could fall in the latter category and be the deciding issue when you choose (or change) schools. But, then again, it might not be. Also, specifically wrt EDM, what's arguably missing (computational speed) is so easy to fix and what's beneficial is harder to replace. So unless you can find a well-balanced program, if you have to choose between the two extremes, it could be rational to stick with EDM. What bugs me about the critique of EDM in this thread is that it's as if there's some kind of one-drop rule -- any program that uses EDM must be bad and should be avoided (might not be your logic -- can't tell which posts are whose). If you start there, then you're unlikely to find a balanced alternative. Unless you check out the British school and have no qualms about a program that has a lot in common with EDM/reform math, but has a different name/source.

[Anonymous]

I just wish that schools would not invest so heavily in one approach. Why can't there be a mixture of basic math with the reform approach. Seems like you reduce your chances of going wrong if you combine them.