Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But, confronting that problem requires better candidate recruitment and more demanded from teachers. It also requires confronting the union, which is unlikely. (And I say that although I am generally pro-union.)

Confronting that problem requires the US to change its attitude about the value of teaching. MCPS can't hire candidates who don't exist.

Agreed. I would have been a teacher instead of going to law school if I could have started with anything like a similar earning potential of even a newly minted associate.

I do wonder whether math specialists are something we should try. Growing up in another country, we always had different teachers for math and language arts. They really are different subjects and it is a lot to expect the teacher to be good at both. Maybe not for K-2. But certainly once they can do complicated word problems, it is time to employ math specialists.

MCPS could address this issue by hiring specific math and science teachers for elementary school rather than just having one teacher do everything. MCPS could throw 2.0 out the window and develop a real math program.
MCPS could re-instate differentiation and acceleration in math but this time tie it to rigor in the assessment required to move ahead.
MCPS could offer before and after school math tutoring services for students who struggle rather than having the whole class sit through 50 repetitions of the same stuff.
MCPS could manage its teachers. If a majority of students who receive As and Bs on tests throughout the year receive a D or below on the county or state exam it shows a failure in teaching and quality control at the local school and county level. Slowing it down and constant repetition in 2.0 isn't going to solve the problem.
MCPS could be transparent with its scores rather than hiding them from year until a parents group brings the problem public.

MCPS will not do any of these things because MCPS isn't a functional organization. It is poorly led and mismanaged. It needs new leadership to change and a political mandate that the past poor performance on so many fronts is not acceptable.

Anonymous wrote:But, confronting that problem requires better candidate recruitment and more demanded from teachers. It also requires confronting the union, which is unlikely. (And I say that although I am generally pro-union.)

Confronting that problem requires the US to change its attitude about the value of teaching. MCPS can't hire candidates who don't exist.

Yep. Math for English majors.

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, where to begin, "conceptual understanding," "real world application," "making sense of the math," and yes, using English to explain math. I am all explaining your answer when there is something to explain. Not 4+2=6.

This. I've been surprised at how heavily MCPS pushes language arts over math. The larger issue is that K-12 education doesn't attract individuals that are very good at math. You get people who if they weren't education majors would have been communication or english majors. There is a fundamental lack of science and math understanding throughout education. Its not just the teachers but the people writing the curriculum. The other reality is that K-12 just doesn't attract the most intelligent people. You have mediocre people propagating mediocre instruction.

+100. Our experience has been that the math teachers are very weak in their understanding. We have had many experiences where our children were taught certain concepts incorrectly (not just incorrect methods but concepts that were mathematically incorrect). Changing the standards and re-doing the curriculum doesn't help that problem. I see the same problems in C2.0 that were present in the prior curriculum. The problem is the teaching. But, confronting that problem requires better candidate recruitment and more demanded from teachers. It also requires confronting the union, which is unlikely. (And I say that although I am generally pro-union.)

Oh, where to begin, "conceptual understanding," "real world application," "making sense of the math," and yes, using English to explain math. I am all explaining your answer when there is something to explain. Not 4+2=6.

This. I've been surprised at how heavily MCPS pushes language arts over math. The larger issue is that K-12 education doesn't attract individuals that are very good at math. You get people who if they weren't education majors would have been communication or english majors. There is a fundamental lack of science and math understanding throughout education. Its not just the teachers but the people writing the curriculum. The other reality is that K-12 just doesn't attract the most intelligent people. You have mediocre people propagating mediocre instruction.

Anonymous wrote:Hi, I am the PP. MCPS may not be full on inquiry-based as you described. But read this

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/math/middle/math6/

Does not sound like investigation math to you?

Again, I'm not talking about the words they use. I'm talking about what they actually do. And, as it happens, child #1 is just finishing Math 6, so I'm familiar what they actually do, at least in one Math 6 in MCPS. Namely: NOT investigation math.

Keep in mind, also, that this is the old math curriculum. (I.e., this is the one lots of DCUM posters are nostalgic for the good old days of, compared to the nefarious dumbing-down of Curriculum 2.0.)

Here are the new curriculum (2.0) math goals for first grade:

GOALS: Students will develop the knowledge and skills essential to achieving mathematical proficiency by—
• developing both conceptual understanding and procedural fluency;
• thinking and reasoning mathematically; and
• using mathematics to solve problems in authentic contexts.

And here is what they're supposed to learn in the first quarter of first grade:

• Math routines
• Counting to 120, starting at any number less than 120
• Place Value: tens and ones
• Comparison: 2-digit numbers
• Ten more, ten less
• Part-whole concepts (1-digit numbers): decomposing
• Addition and subtraction situations for 1-digit numbers
• Categorical data: bar graphs, pictographs

You will probably think, again, that the goals sound like reform math. And again I will say that, at least in one first-grade classroom in MCPS, what they actually did was not investigation math.

Hi, I am the PP. MCPS may not be full on inquiry-based as you described. But read this

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/math/middle/math6/

Does not sound like investigation math to you?

PP at 12:24, are you the PP at 11:41?

Actually, I guess, whether you are or not, the evidence I would like to see from the PP at 11:41 is that this is the stuff that teachers in MCPS are doing -- i.e., that children are expected to first solve problems using their own understanding and methods, or that there is a decreased emphasis on complex paper-and-pencil computation drills, and so on.

Because that's not what I'm seeing.

From Wikipedia, sorry no time for better sources,

"A common misconception is that reform educators do not want children to learn the standard methods of arithmetic. As the NCTM Focal Points make clear, such methods are still the ultimate goal, but reformers believe that conceptual understanding should come first. Reform educators believe that such understanding is best pursued by allowing children at first to solve problems using their own understanding and methods. Under guidance from the teacher, students eventually arrive at an understanding of standard methods. Even the controversial NCTM Standards of 1989 did not call for abandoning standard algorithms, but instead recommended a decreased emphasis on complex paper-and-pencil computation drills and greater attention to mental computation, estimation skills, thinking strategies for mastering basic facts and conceptual understanding of arithmetic operations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_mathematics

Anonymous wrote:You see what the kids are doing and you recognize that it has a heavy dose of reform math. Those are the code words they use. Since who can really oppose conceptual understanding, right? What kind of evidence do you need? You meant a confession from MCPS that they are using reform math? Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Are you a lawyer? I am not. But I am in a math heavy field and I know math, and recently really woke up to the reality of math education in this country.

Actually, I see what the kids are doing (at least my kids), and I DON'T recognize that it has a heavy dose of reform math.

I am not a lawyer, I am also in a math-heavy field, I also know math, and I think that the reality of math education, at least in my experience of it in MCPS, is that it's much better than it was when I was in elementary school.

So: what kind of evidence do I need? How about evidence that the teachers are discouraged from teaching algorithms, or that students are expected to come up with computation solutions on their own or in small groups, or that students get open-ended problems with no clear answers -- i.e., the kind of stuff that reform math actually does. I have not seen any evidence of this. Perhaps you have.

You see what the kids are doing and you recognize that it has a heavy dose of reform math. Those are the code words they use. Since who can really oppose conceptual understanding, right? What kind of evidence do you need? You meant a confession from MCPS that they are using reform math? Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Are you a lawyer? I am not. But I am in a math heavy field and I know math, and recently really woke up to the reality of math education in this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, I think MCPS math is very much of the reform flavor.

Evidence, please. Which is to say -- evidence other than "sometimes the worksheets in elementary school ask you to explain how you got the answer in words".

Oh, where to begin, "conceptual understanding," "real world application," "making sense of the math," and yes, using English to explain math. I am all explaining your answer when there is something to explain. Not 4+2=6.

I meant real actual evidence. Not "MCPS uses some of the same phrases that "reform math" uses." Unless you think that wanting children to have a conceptual understanding, be able to apply the math to real-world examples, and make sense of the math are inherently bad, which I assume you don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, I think MCPS math is very much of the reform flavor.

Evidence, please. Which is to say -- evidence other than "sometimes the worksheets in elementary school ask you to explain how you got the answer in words".

Oh, where to begin, "conceptual understanding," "real world application," "making sense of the math," and yes, using English to explain math. I am all explaining your answer when there is something to explain. Not 4+2=6.