Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion of the "facts"/quick way vs. concept had to do with the chosen elementary curriculum, Eureka, which emphasizes concept via multiple methodologies. Not all parents/guardians/caregivers learned all of the different approaches, so it can be difficult to support at home without a textbook or teaching guide, which the parent tip sheets decidedly are not (the GreatMinds link currently has no content, while the NY Engage link requires a NY State Microsoft login).

MCPS has chosen this curriculum, and with good reasoning; the curriculum office folks, to my experience, have both subject matter and pedagogical expertise. The multi-faceted understanding should serve students well as they progress, and appropriate, if not super-robust, enrichments/accelerations are available to help meet the needs of kids who "get it" quickly.

What MCPS needs to do is:

1) ensure better identification of, and fidelity to, need for enrichment/acceleration,

2) ensure teacher support to allow consistent application/management of the enrichment differentiation, especially in classrooms with students of highly heterogeneous capability, and

3) make teaching materials available to families to allow them to provide support, as NY has.

Otherwise, they are not only limiting the potential of the curriculum, but exacerbating the gap between haves (more homogeneous-capability classrooms, more routine access to costly outside enrichment employed when family-guided support is difficult) and have-nots.

Which is why it was suggested to get the family/parent sheets sent home. If someone can’t follow those for ES math, then that individual does not understand the underlying math concept themself. At which point it would be better to inform the school teacher/math specialist about the kids struggles. No teacher or district is expecting parents to have to learn and teach a subject.

Anonymous wrote:

If you feel this is a relevant issue for your child, I highly recommend you directly ask the teacher if they will require your students to memorize the basic facts.

Or, you know, simply work on math facts with your child. At worst, it will reinforce what they're learning in class.

The back and forth about math facts reminds me of similar debates on whether or not MCPS taught grammar. In that case, although MCPS’s curriculum discouraged formal, systematic grammar instruction, teachers often compensated for the shortfall. I know this because I was on the curriculum committee, and when I asked my children’s teachers every year on back to school night whether they taught grammar, they’d usually hem and haw a little, maybe glance around, and then say because they realized it was important they made a point to teach grammar (while trying not to criticize MCPS). I even had one teacher say that she used the grammar curriculum from the private school her daughter attended. While my child, and many others may have had grammar instruction, possibly at a high level, that instruction was in spite of MCPS, not because of it. Moreover, it was entirely teacher dependent. If a teacher wasn’t strong, themselves, in grammar, or didn’t want to risk career problems by diverging from MCPS’s official curriculum and practices, their students might not have been so fortunate. (This was under an old curriculum. I don’t know the current status of grammar instruction under the new curriculum.)

With the disagreement about whether or not math facts are required, we may be facing a similar situation. MCPS may not require memorization of basic facts, but many teachers may do it anyway. Conversely, the situation might be that MCPS wants students to memorize basic facts, but for whatever reason an individual teacher might have, they’re not requiring their students to do so.

If you feel this is a relevant issue for your child, I highly recommend you directly ask the teacher if they will require your students to memorize the basic facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Eureka way is dumb imo. My dad who taught college math for over 40 years (still teaching!) asked why are they teaching simple arithmetic this way?

People who teach college math are the LAST people to consult about teaching math to elementary-school students imo.

Kids need to learn the basics like math facts. We had to teach them at home. The strategies are worthless come Algebra.

On the contrary. If all you do is memorize math facts and "these are the steps to solve the problem," then you will be in trouble when you get to algebra, and the more advanced the math gets, the more in trouble you will be.

PP didn’t say that ALL (as in the only thing) kids need to do is to memorize math facts. They said that basic math facts are something kids need to learn (without excluding learning other things).

I think that memorizing basic math facts (along with learning general concepts) is important because it frees up processing power to focus on the concept. This is especially important as the concepts become more complex (like algebra). Moreover, knowing basic facts helps develop number sense. It makes it easier to consider whether an answer seems reasonable.

I don't think anybody disagrees that kids need to memorize math facts (i.e., addition/subtraction/multiplication/division for 0-9).

MCPs disagrees.

MCPS never ever tested my kids on their times tables.

Correction, a specific teacher may or may not have tested your child. It’s certainly not a district wide phenomenon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, as someone who does not have a kid old enough for this stuff yet: do kids not memorize math facts anymore?

Seems like the goal should be to teach kids the concepts behind the math AND have them memorize math facts, so they can do more advanced math more easily.

Yes, kids memorize math facts.

+1. Kids are taught and required to memorize the math facts. They are also taught how to solve for them. Both are needed skills so folks can understand underlying math concepts and do higher level math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Eureka way is dumb imo. My dad who taught college math for over 40 years (still teaching!) asked why are they teaching simple arithmetic this way?

People who teach college math are the LAST people to consult about teaching math to elementary-school students imo.

Kids need to learn the basics like math facts. We had to teach them at home. The strategies are worthless come Algebra.

On the contrary. If all you do is memorize math facts and "these are the steps to solve the problem," then you will be in trouble when you get to algebra, and the more advanced the math gets, the more in trouble you will be.

PP didn’t say that ALL (as in the only thing) kids need to do is to memorize math facts. They said that basic math facts are something kids need to learn (without excluding learning other things).

I think that memorizing basic math facts (along with learning general concepts) is important because it frees up processing power to focus on the concept. This is especially important as the concepts become more complex (like algebra). Moreover, knowing basic facts helps develop number sense. It makes it easier to consider whether an answer seems reasonable.

I don't think anybody disagrees that kids need to memorize math facts (i.e., addition/subtraction/multiplication/division for 0-9).

MCPs disagrees.

MCPS never ever tested my kids on their times tables.

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS doesn't want students learning at home. That exacerbates inequality, because rich kids have more time and support at home than poor kids.

No, that's not true.

Anonymous wrote:Wait, as someone who does not have a kid old enough for this stuff yet: do kids not memorize math facts anymore?

Seems like the goal should be to teach kids the concepts behind the math AND have them memorize math facts, so they can do more advanced math more easily.

Yes, kids memorize math facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion of the "facts"/quick way vs. concept had to do with the chosen elementary curriculum, Eureka, which emphasizes concept via multiple methodologies. Not all parents/guardians/caregivers learned all of the different approaches, so it can be difficult to support at home without a textbook or teaching guide, which the parent tip sheets decidedly are not (the GreatMinds link currently has no content, while the NY Engage link requires a NY State Microsoft login).

MCPS has chosen this curriculum, and with good reasoning; the curriculum office folks, to my experience, have both subject matter and pedagogical expertise. The multi-faceted understanding should serve students well as they progress, and appropriate, if not super-robust, enrichments/accelerations are available to help meet the needs of kids who "get it" quickly.

What MCPS needs to do is:

1) ensure better identification of, and fidelity to, need for enrichment/acceleration,

2) ensure teacher support to allow consistent application/management of the enrichment differentiation, especially in classrooms with students of highly heterogeneous capability, and

3) make teaching materials available to families to allow them to provide support, as NY has.

Otherwise, they are not only limiting the potential of the curriculum, but exacerbating the gap between haves (more homogeneous-capability classrooms, more routine access to costly outside enrichment employed when family-guided support is difficult) and have-nots.

MCPS doesn't want students learning at home. That exacerbates inequality, because rich kids have more time and support at home than poor kids.

That's an oft-repeated opinion, and not one that I'm certain is the case. Unsure if this was a troll, but...

If the aim is equity, they do a disservice in effectively limiting the supports a family might be able to provide without significant personal cost, leaving only those with means the ability to pursue enrichment outside the MCPS framework. While that may, on the face of it, mean less difference between the middle and the lower end of the economic scale via impeding the former, it would mean greater difference between them both and those on the higher end. Few would see that as the real underlying objective, even if it may be the unfortunate result of occult policy positions promoted by shortsighted overseers.

Personally, I haven't had teachers ask us not to pursue help at home. Quite the opposite -- we've been asked to review regularly with our kids. (Not a W, btw, in case that matters to anyone.) They don't really have much to which they can point us, though, beyond the tip sheets and Khan Academy.

This comedian explains it so well. Ha!

Anonymous wrote:Wait, as someone who does not have a kid old enough for this stuff yet: do kids not memorize math facts anymore?

Seems like the goal should be to teach kids the concepts behind the math AND have them memorize math facts, so they can do more advanced math more easily.

Unfortunately some educators have adopted and implemented a philosophy that memorization is bad. So there has been a notable shift away from memorization in math instruction, in favor of (in my opinion) for complex and time consuming systems that lead to the math facts rather than memorizing the math facts.

But there's been pushback on whether that's right or not in education circles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Eureka way is dumb imo. My dad who taught college math for over 40 years (still teaching!) asked why are they teaching simple arithmetic this way?

People who teach college math are the LAST people to consult about teaching math to elementary-school students imo.

Or, the FIRST because they see all the pitfalls that lead to math deficiency down the line!

College math professors might be able to say that people are having problems with college math, but they will not be able to explain why, because they don't understand how to teach math effectively to general people, and especially not elementary-school math.

Anecdotally, some of the math professors I had in college were worse at teaching math than my high school math teacher who was primarily the girls' softball coach.

Anecdotally, the best math teachers I ever had were in college.

Perhaps the only thing thing we can safely conclude from our respective anecdotes is that personal anecdotes are an unreliable basis on which to form generalizations.

I do believe that subject matter experts need to be involved in the development and review of a subject’s curriculum. The curriculum generated by MCPS seems to be developed by staff that are supposedly pedagogical experts rather than subject matter experts, and so there is less emphasis on content, and less understanding in how it fits together and builds on itself to form the necessary foundation for higher levels.

Actually, I highly recommend the book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics by Liping Ma. To your point, she’s a schoolteacher, not a college professor, who compares the effectiveness of math instruction in China and the US. Her book would support your position that it doesn’t take a professor to effectively teach math, but it does take someone with a deep (not necessarily advanced) understanding of the subject and a focus on the subject in the curriculum.

I'm curious which instruction she finds more effective.

The secret to math in China is to spend a lot more time on it. Of course that part would help everywhere.
But pedagogically, People who spend time teaching in both China and US (and these are Chinese people) say that Chinese style cram practice stunts kids ability to solve novel problems.

There is a reason foreign smart people come to USA for post-secondary education much much more than the other direction.

She found that Chinese teachers tended to have deeper subject knowledge and used that not only to teach the individual concepts, but also to consider how the concepts fit together. American teachers focused more superficially on teaching specific methods, but weren’t generally very good at teaching the math concept underlying the method (and might not even understand it themselves).

I highly recommend the book. More than an interesting comparison of two different educational cultures, it also offers great insight into effective educational practices.

Wait, as someone who does not have a kid old enough for this stuff yet: do kids not memorize math facts anymore?

Seems like the goal should be to teach kids the concepts behind the math AND have them memorize math facts, so they can do more advanced math more easily.

Eureka has not been great for my 4th grader, who has some attention issues. It's missing the forest for the trees. Learning basic math facts is a life skill. You need to have your basic math facts memorized in order to do simple calculations at the grocery store, when cooking, when budgeting. Once I realized she didn't have good fluency in basic math facts, I began drilling her starting last year. I think with persistently drilling her, she will eventually achieve fluency. How many kids is Eureka missing though-whose parents won't be drilling them at home

Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion of the "facts"/quick way vs. concept had to do with the chosen elementary curriculum, Eureka, which emphasizes concept via multiple methodologies. Not all parents/guardians/caregivers learned all of the different approaches, so it can be difficult to support at home without a textbook or teaching guide, which the parent tip sheets decidedly are not (the GreatMinds link currently has no content, while the NY Engage link requires a NY State Microsoft login).

MCPS has chosen this curriculum, and with good reasoning; the curriculum office folks, to my experience, have both subject matter and pedagogical expertise. The multi-faceted understanding should serve students well as they progress, and appropriate, if not super-robust, enrichments/accelerations are available to help meet the needs of kids who "get it" quickly.

What MCPS needs to do is:

1) ensure better identification of, and fidelity to, need for enrichment/acceleration,

2) ensure teacher support to allow consistent application/management of the enrichment differentiation, especially in classrooms with students of highly heterogeneous capability, and

3) make teaching materials available to families to allow them to provide support, as NY has.

Otherwise, they are not only limiting the potential of the curriculum, but exacerbating the gap between haves (more homogeneous-capability classrooms, more routine access to costly outside enrichment employed when family-guided support is difficult) and have-nots.

MCPS doesn't want students learning at home. That exacerbates inequality, because rich kids have more time and support at home than poor kids.