Nobody is disputing that the demographics in the US and Japan are different. Nor is anybody saying that Curriculum 2.0 is the perfect math curriculum handed down on Mt. Math from the Great Math Teacher In The Sky.

The question under discussion is whether "traditional math" teaching methods in the US (however defined) worked for most people in the US. And the answer to this question is: no.

I read the article when it was first published, and I recall discussing it with my relatives (including the retired math teacher).

I agree that mcps was negligent when it mandated 2.0---a hastily thrown together curriculum designed by a bunch of classroom teachers hired by their pals. They neglected to not only train the teachers, but also to provide effective instructional tools. Heck, they didn't even provide uniform assessment tools initially! Was that your point?

As the mom of a guinea pig, I know what happened.

And I think comparing American students to Japanese students is hilarious! Go ahead and compare our melting pot to their homogenous society. Ever been to japan? Do you think they have gangs of saggy pants wearing kids in math class? How many Japanese students were born to drug addicted parents? How many entered the country alone as a child and live with distant relatives or practical strangers? How many immigrants to Japan don't speak Japanese? That's our reality...and magical math classes won't fix that problem.

The test scores and data in mcps indicate an achievement gap for AAs and Hispanics. It's not new. And it's linked to socioeconomics. I attended a policy program this month where a fed (dept of ed) discussed emerging data and tracking related to socioeconomics and homelessness---maybe that forthcoming data might help you better understand.

Anonymous wrote:

You mean it doesn't close the achievement gap? Duh!

To read about how Zuckerberg poured millions of dollars into fancy schools, uber teachers and technology in Newark...and it was a miserable failure. Why? Because it takes much more to close the achievement gap for low-income minorities. Again, duh!

The traditional math works well for most students. But kids being raised in abject poverty who aren't receiving the same attention and resources as your yuppie snowflake from infancy through school are going to lag behind. 2.0 won't fix that...unless 2.0 includes housing, food, stable parents, safe neighborhoods, and parents who value education and have the economic wherewithal and time to dedicate to teaching their children starting at toddlerhood. And universal pre-k...while nice...doesn't close the achievement gap either...see above for explanation related to complex human needs that must be met outside the classroom.

Signed,

Poverty Lawyer who understands the struggles of low-income families

No, it doesn't. Please read the New York Times linked above. And then, if you still think that it does, please present the evidence that shows that it does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go read the thread on tutors. So many families supplement because 2.0 super sucks.

Search on DCUM for threads about math tutors before 2.0. There were plenty.

In elementary school? I don't think so.

Go read the parcc data. Check out the algebra data.

Think again.

Also, the PARCC data may show many things, but one thing they certainly do not show is that math under Curriculum 2.0 is less effective than under the previous curriculum. It is not possible for the PARCC data to show that.

They'll give it another year or so, then they won't have any excuses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering what "old-fashioned algebra" is.

I'm not exactly sure, but I think it means they didn't rely on subpar teachers who were recruited by their friends at the main office to draft a new curriculum that utilizes made up words and employs 29 steps instead of the most direct route to solving the problem. In short: it means the way all of us learned math prior to 2.0.

No, that can't be what it means, because "the way all of us learned math prior to 2.0" only worked for a small percentage of us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

Any other ideas?

Simple fact, just because the prior teaching didn't work for everyone doesn't mean the new teaching will be an improvement. It can actually be even worse. I think that's where we are but I guess we're going to send a generation of kids through this new system to prove it.

Yes, that is true. It does mean that we shouldn't go back to the "traditional" way of teaching math, though. We already know that that way does not work.

You mean it doesn't close the achievement gap? Duh!

To read about how Zuckerberg poured millions of dollars into fancy schools, uber teachers and technology in Newark...and it was a miserable failure. Why? Because it takes much more to close the achievement gap for low-income minorities. Again, duh!

The traditional math works well for most students. But kids being raised in abject poverty who aren't receiving the same attention and resources as your yuppie snowflake from infancy through school are going to lag behind. 2.0 won't fix that...unless 2.0 includes housing, food, stable parents, safe neighborhoods, and parents who value education and have the economic wherewithal and time to dedicate to teaching their children starting at toddlerhood. And universal pre-k...while nice...doesn't close the achievement gap either...see above for explanation related to complex human needs that must be met outside the classroom.

Signed,

Poverty Lawyer who understands the struggles of low-income families

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go read the thread on tutors. So many families supplement because 2.0 super sucks.

Search on DCUM for threads about math tutors before 2.0. There were plenty.

In elementary school? I don't think so.

Go read the parcc data. Check out the algebra data.

Think again.

Also, the PARCC data may show many things, but one thing they certainly do not show is that math under Curriculum 2.0 is less effective than under the previous curriculum. It is not possible for the PARCC data to show that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're citing Wikipedia, plus personal anecdotes going all the way back to...1987.

Sorry I can't pull up better sources from my phone as I'm commuting to work.

Listen: I have three relatives who are teachers. One has taught for mcps for more than 20 years. Two recently retired. One has his masters in math education; he's pushing 80 and has seen the pendulum swing back and forth. I also have three close friends who teach elementary school for mcps. Everyone agrees that the deeper dive of 2.0 is an appropriate mechanism for kids who struggle with math; but most kids don't struggle. Average and above average kids can quickly grasp math skills when taught the old fashioned way...that's why you can teach your kids these methods at home without any issue.

Because I know so many mcps teachers, I've heard about who was hired to design 2.0. Several came from schools where those in hiring positions worked (and one school in particular). They didn't hire experts to design 2.0...they hired their pals...regular classroom teachers...and not from W pyramids.

It may or may not be true that most kids don't struggle with math in class (based on the experience of your three relatives who are math teachers). It is certainly true that Americans, in general, stink at math. Not math the class; actual math.

By the way, I'm impressed by your assumption that classroom teachers from schools in Bethesda/Potomac are better than classroom teachers from other parts of Montgomery County.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go read the thread on tutors. So many families supplement because 2.0 super sucks.

Search on DCUM for threads about math tutors before 2.0. There were plenty.

In elementary school? I don't think so.

Go read the parcc data. Check out the algebra data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering what "old-fashioned algebra" is.

I'm not exactly sure, but I think it means they didn't rely on subpar teachers who were recruited by their friends at the main office to draft a new curriculum that utilizes made up words and employs 29 steps instead of the most direct route to solving the problem. In short: it means the way all of us learned math prior to 2.0.

No, that can't be what it means, because "the way all of us learned math prior to 2.0" only worked for a small percentage of us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

Any other ideas?

Simple fact, just because the prior teaching didn't work for everyone doesn't mean the new teaching will be an improvement. It can actually be even worse. I think that's where we are but I guess we're going to send a generation of kids through this new system to prove it.

Yes, that is true. It does mean that we shouldn't go back to the "traditional" way of teaching math, though. We already know that that way does not work.

Anonymous wrote:Go read the thread on tutors. So many families supplement because 2.0 super sucks.

Search on DCUM for threads about math tutors before 2.0. There were plenty.

Go read the thread on tutors. So many families supplement because 2.0 super sucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering what "old-fashioned algebra" is.

I'm not exactly sure, but I think it means they didn't rely on subpar teachers who were recruited by their friends at the main office to draft a new curriculum that utilizes made up words and employs 29 steps instead of the most direct route to solving the problem. In short: it means the way all of us learned math prior to 2.0.

No, that can't be what it means, because "the way all of us learned math prior to 2.0" only worked for a small percentage of us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

Any other ideas?

Simple fact, just because the prior teaching didn't work for everyone doesn't mean the new teaching will be an improvement. It can actually be even worse. I think that's where we are but I guess we're going to send a generation of kids through this new system to prove it.

Anonymous wrote:You're citing Wikipedia, plus personal anecdotes going all the way back to...1987.

Sorry I can't pull up better sources from my phone as I'm commuting to work.

Listen: I have three relatives who are teachers. One has taught for mcps for more than 20 years. Two recently retired. One has his masters in math education; he's pushing 80 and has seen the pendulum swing back and forth. I also have three close friends who teach elementary school for mcps. Everyone agrees that the deeper dive of 2.0 is an appropriate mechanism for kids who struggle with math; but most kids don't struggle. Average and above average kids can quickly grasp math skills when taught the old fashioned way...that's why you can teach your kids these methods at home without any issue.

Because I know so many mcps teachers, I've heard about who was hired to design 2.0. Several came from schools where those in hiring positions worked (and one school in particular). They didn't hire experts to design 2.0...they hired their pals...regular classroom teachers...and not from W pyramids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stats show that the traditional approach to math works for the majority of students; only those below average students struggle with it and might benefit from the allegedly deeper dive of 2.0...so why not limit it to those who can't handle the traditional approach?

Which statistics show that?

Also, what is the "traditional" approach to math?

+1! Is anybody old enough to remember the "new math" of the Early 1970s? My parents hated that so much that they sent me to Catholic School to learn the "old math," essentially long division, etc. Gen X attorney here: I pulled my kid out of school briefly because he was struggling at this generation's "new" math and now he's in 6th grade earning As in Algebra. His course is essentially the same as mine was (although I took it in 9th grade), except that he is given twice as many problems for homework every night. So how do Algebra 1 courses really change over time?

You're citing Wikipedia, plus personal anecdotes going all the way back to...1987.