What do you think about "New New Math"?

[mathnmusic]

I've been reading some opinions on the horrors of the "new new math" having taken over math education in the US - producing children who can philosophize on math but can't actually DO math. But when I find out what concepts the new new math include, it sounds just like what we're learning in Singapore, MM, Beast, and my beloved Miquon. Stuff like: when asked "what is 6 times 8?", rather than just producing the answer 48 from rote memorization and drill, children can show you the manipulatives of 6 of 8 and can talk about "6 groups of 8" but have great difficulty producing the final answer quickly, if at all. This concerns me for what I'm using to teach math in our household...Even my own dd6, who is very adept at using cuisenaire rods, has a lot of trouble remembering basic addition facts on a quiz. Seriously, I'm thinking of making the switch to an early edition of Saxon, to avoid the "new new math".

 

What do you think about the way math is taught in our curriculums?

[LucyStoner]

Why frame it as a dichotomy? I don't think basic procedure and memorization are at odds with a strong conceptual understanding of math. Plenty of people have a strong conceptual understanding of math can and will have good fact recall, even if it is not the first thing they master. People who love math, who major in fields that rely on math, do not get far without the strong conceptual understanding that what you term "new new math" is shooting for. A plug and chug arithmetic only approach leads to kids who can "do math" but not tackle difficult questions where the formula and equation is not neatly delineated for them. Students who know the definition of the distributive property but can't square a larger number or apply that definition outside of the order of operations.

 

We use a mix which works for my son. We are gearing up for AOPS pre-algebra next year which we delayed in favor of going pretty wide and deep with arithmetic and basic geometry facts using stuff from Singapore, Beast Academy, Jump Math, local fun math classes/groups for gifted math students, Challenge Math, Problemoids etc. I pull in some extra practice problems from Saxon and/or Kumon workbooks as we need to keep him busy and make sure he has things down in different formats. I write problems for him myself as well.

 

My son was slower with the math facts than I expected, in part due to his Autism which comes for him with a delayed processing speed as compared to his extremely high verbal and quantitative reasoning scores. I was frustrated, nervous and actually a little embarrassed. Did I mention I was also being stupid? :laugh: When I tried to tackle that in isolation and just focus on increasing his speed with facts, I nearly killed his love of math and I was wasting his strong talent with problem solving. So I dropped that approach and worked on it while also letting him go more into problem solving at a high enough level to feed his interest. I signed him up for classes on perfect squares and on Infinity. I found it ironic that a boy who learned to rapidly square numbers in his head and could set up a great equation for a word problem or look at a challenge math problem and just announce the answer definitively would often stumble when asked what 17+27 or 12 divided by 3 was. I found out a few things. First was that be it time, age or just practice in problems he actually cared about, his facts sped up considerably. Second was a reminder that mathematics is inherently more interesting to him (and many) than arithmetic. Third was that in the end in the real world when you are using math you will have a calculator to check the arithmetic. You won't have a calculator that can think for you and tell the computer how to solve real life problems with math. Don't get me wrong, I don't let him use a calculator yet. But when someone needs to do a division problem in college level math or as part of a work project, they aren't sitting there doing long division by hand generally. Of course it is important to be able to division for lots of reasons in your head and on paper as well.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I agree with the combo idea. I love RS, use it in K and First then switch to CLE and keep lots of RS ideas. I want them to know BOTH how and why.

[creekland]

Knowing both how and why is super important for math. I don't know if the new, new math is anything different than the fuzzy math I see here in our school district, but what I've found coming through the trenches (I'm in high school) are kids who can use calculators to a fault - they trust their calculator answer even when what it gives blatently doesn't make sense (from a typo), kids who can follow steps to solve something, but have no clue how to come up with those steps on their own (they must see the directions), and kids who give up on even remotely challenging problems way too easily (this might go with my second complaint - no specific direction to follow, so they're lost).

 

These kids know neither how nor why, but they can draw pretty pictures and punch numbers on their calculators - if given step by step instructions.

 

I detest fuzzy math. So do the vast majority of our students. Our test scores for math are dismal. We make all kids do 2 years worth of Alg 1 and our test scores are still dismal. IMO, the old ways are better AS LONG AS the kids still learn why they are doing what they are doing - not just a different set of steps.

[stripe]

I don't like endless droning about sets, unions, and so forth. Apparently some of the "new math" books spent tons of time going on about that, which made even addition unclear. Having had an instructor in grad school who (in a non-math class, might I clarify) spent each of her sessions explaining what a union and an intersection of sets was, until the entire class nearly lost its collective mind as NO NEW MATERIAL WAS EVER PRESENTED, I would not want to do that to my kids. I have seen the math books archived at the Living Library of Modern Math, and I've used parts of these books with my kids, I can say, every book starts with a chapter on set theory. I discussed very briefly and did other sections of the book instead.

 

I basically just want my kids to know what they're doing.

[regentrude]

I am all for conceptual understanding, and we are using AoPS which is very heavy on concepts - but at the same time, the student needs to become proficient in doing math. Which is not the case with a "new new" math curriculum that encourages calculator use as early as 1st grade, claims that teaching long division is a waste of valuable class time, teaches "benchmark" fractions and folding of "fraction strips" in 6th grade ... the list goes on. Connected Math was one of the main reasons we started homeschooling.

There is nothing wrong with a program that teaches the concepts and the "why" - in fact, I consider this extremely necessary (and one area where Saxon is weak) , but it also needs to teach computation and problem solving.

As a college physics instructor, I see horrible examples of calculator dependent students every week; it may possibly be the greatest barrier between them and an understanding of math.

[Paige]

I think the difference is in practice and not so much the philosophy. We use MM and my kids had Everyday Math in school. I spoke with the principal about my concerns with EM and he gave me the excuses about how it teaches kids to think in different ways, I don't understand it, about concepts, explaining, and on and on. All of those would be good if it actually happened and the kids learned that and could do it. The difference between MM and EM, however, is that my kids could actually do the math! New new math has all these nice talking points, but in practice, they don't work out because kids spend too much time talking and playing and too little time doing and practicing. You can't teach them to add 16+18 by adding 20+20 and taking away 6 without a lot of practice. It may be faster in the end and it may lead to a better understanding of math, but it isn't always easier at first. Then, you spend a class on 16+18 and in one day show them to do it by changing it to 20+20-6, or 20+18-4, or 16+20-2, or 10+10+6+8, or 16+4+14, all in one day, then move on to something else the next day! They'll practice those problems one or two at a time for the next 3 years, but they will rarely receive more instruction or teacher time on it because it is not set up for lots of drill on one idea. My kids in MM were taught similar strategies, but would spend several days on each option and then they are encouraged to pick whatever works for them best. My 5th grader had learned the concepts that the other 5th graders had learned (except lattice), but while they still had to guess and draw circles and use calculators, he could do most of it in his head correctly. He is bright, but not a math genius.

 

Some teachers work hard to build drill and mastery into New new math, but it is hard for them to find time and stick with the curriculum. If the kids are lucky enough to have a teacher who can really make the new new math work, the kids may do well that year, but then the next end up with a teacher who is doing his or her best but doesn't know how to fix the curriculum to help his or her class.

[MFA323]

We like Singapore because DD gets both. She understands the process because of the textbook examples and practice with C-rods. She also spends plenty of time memorizing and practicing with the workbook and the mental math pages. It seems like a lot of kids from public schools around here (Everyday Math) don't get enough practice with things like our workbook and mental math. They understand how they should arrive at an answer, but actually computing is difficult for them. As a HS'er you can add practice and drills to any curriculum if you don't think that your DC are memorizing facts and learning to compute efficiently. We use Wrapups and Meerkat Math occasionally when DD needs more practice.

[Crimson Wife]

Ok so is New New Math something different than New Math? LOL

 

 

New Math is CSMP. New New Math (aka "Fuzzy Math") is Every Day Mathematics or TERC Investigations. CSMP is not a bad program for bright kids provided the teacher understands the program and knows how to teach it (I'd consider using it for my DS if I could make heads or tails of it). EDM & TERC are just plain awful.

 

To the OP, Singapore and MM will teach both the traditional algorithms AND the conceptual underpinnings. They are solid programs and you don't need to switch to Saxon unless they aren't working for your kids.

[Dana]

 

New Math is CSMP.

 

 

CSMP becomes the Elements of Mathematics towards middle school... and is now coming available online :) It's really really good. (It does include set theory though! ;) )

 

Our district uses EveryDay Mathmatics (blech). I teach remedial math at the community college. I see students so much weaker without the calculator & without number sense. I see a worsening of math ability.

 

A friend taught for a couple of years at the university in town. She saw stronger students, so it is possible that Everyday Math is helping good students (or they're getting more tutoring to help) and really harming poor students.

 

From what I've seen of Everyday Math, I think it would be fine in the hands of an excellent teacher. Unfortunately, I see very few excellent math teachers in elementary school (and have seen people who don't teach the distributive property because the students could just use order of operations :blink: )

 

I'm very happy using Miquon in early years, Singapore Standards, then moving on to EM or AoPS.

[EKS]

By "new, new math" I'm assuming you mean reform math programs like Investigations and Everyday Math.

 

There are things about reform math that mimic what you see in Asian (or Asian inspired) math programs and this was intentional. The problem with reform math is that they kept the conceptual stuff and got rid of the practice with standard algorithms and practice with more complicated numbers. So, in the fourth grade Investigations program, you'll see fractions up to twelfths and nothing more complicated. Essentially, they kept the easy, fun, conceptual stuff and eliminated the rest.

 

I do think that a good math teacher could make the reform math programs work. It's just that there are a lot of people who go into elementary education hoping to get away from math.

[Walking-Iris]

You know i tend to just think that math is math!!! About concepts and "philosophizing"---honestly, some mathematicians or scientists who use math heavily wouldn't be able to come to the conclusions they have very well if math were *only* rote memorization to get to a correct answer quickly. often times getting the wrong answer slowly is what helps breakthroughs.

 

I don't think one has to choose either or for kids. I love Miquon. In the early years kids are very able to learn these conceptual ideas. I balance that with practice in the basics as well. If a child doesn't have to struggle to remember how to add or subtract then they are free to think about concepts. On the other hand if kids are pressured into memorization and "getting the right answer" too early and too often without understanding *why* or *how* they get the answer or how math sub-topics are connected, then I feel they will struggle.

 

There has to be balance. as far as certain math curricula. Sometimes it's not so much the concepts, but the format that makes or breaks it. I think SM is good on concept but I don't really like the format and layout of the books and lessons. That works for others. It doesn't mean that SM philosophy is wrong. Also I believe that an educator could take a typical ps textbook that emphasizes drill and kill and turn it into a lovely conceptual math program with the right manipulatives and teaching techniques.

 

And then one has to also be conscious of an individual kid's unique learning style and strengths/weaknesses. All of this to say that i don't buy into the terms new new math, new math, old math, fuzzy math, uber super cool new math!!! Lol. It's just math.

[regentrude]

There are things about reform math that mimic what you see in Asian (or Asian inspired) math programs and this was intentional.... Essentially, they kept the easy, fun, conceptual stuff and eliminated the rest.

 

I do think that a good math teacher could make the reform math programs work. It's just that there are a lot of people who go into elementary education hoping to get away from math.

 

This is probably the most important difference between math education in Asian countries and in the US: teacher qualification. The math teacher himself must possess the thorough conceptual understanding. Sadly, this is frequently not the case in this country.

[G5052]

This is probably the most important difference between math education in Asian countries and in the US: teacher qualification. The math teacher himself must possess the thorough conceptual understanding. Sadly, this is frequently not the case in this country.

 

 

Yes, I realized the problem some years ago. The math teachers I had in high school were all math majors who had decided for various reasons to go into high school teaching. They picked their own textbooks and were given the freedom to teach the way they wanted to. The calculus teacher had a PhD in math, and came from her research job for just calculus.

 

Then I went to a talk when mine were little given by a "math specialist" from a local school system. And I was a bit taken back when she talked about finally getting around to taking college algebra the previous summer. From what she said, you need very few actual math courses to be a math specialist. Mostly you take courses in how to teach math.

[regentrude]

From what she said, you need very few actual math courses to be a math specialist. Mostly you take courses in how to teach math.

 

 

And I am afraid, the curriculum developers are often people like this. What strikes me about many math curricula is that they must have been developed by people who never actually used math beyond basic arithmetic - the ideas "how to teach" are completely out of touch with what is required for people who use higher math in their daily job.

A person who realizes the importance of polynomial division could not possibly come up with the idea to eliminate the teaching of long division "because you can do it with a calculator".

 

Interestingly, Chicago math was originally intended as a concept heavy program for gifted math students. The mathematicians involved in the development have since distanced themselves form the program because it was never intended for broad classroom use or to teach math to weak students. And from what I have seen, I can definitely imagine it to be a great enrichment for strong math students who do not need as much drill to develop proficiency and have their heads free to appreciate the concepts and things like lattice multiplication - because for them, the standard algorithm is a piece of cake.

[mathnmusic]

Thanks for all your feedback! Appreciate the reminders to keep calm and carry on. I do have a tendency to panic and throw the baby out with the bathwater. I do love Miquon and am reasonably happy with the other programs we're using. I agree that conceptual understanding is not a negative, but lays a strong foundation for the drill that's needed to solidify the facts. We've been a bit lax on doing the drill portion of it...so that's probably why my dd6 has some trouble recalling addition facts.

 

Yes, teacher qualification is so critical. Speaking of, I need to read up on my Liping Ma and Ruth Beechick books.

[Sarah CB]

I wrote about this a few years ago on my (very outdated) blog:

 

http://fanningflame.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/thinking-strategies-vs-rote-memorization/

 

Basically, I think it's best to teach conceptually first, then develop solid thinking strategies, then drill whatever facts aren't coming instantly after all that work. If you skip straight to rote then it's easier not to actually think and is a big disadvantage later.

[LucyStoner]

Yeah, none of the programs you listed (Singapore, MM and Miquon) are the same as the "new new math" you were worrying about. I wouldn't switch to Saxon unless you are really not liking the ones you are using.

 

I was given a set of the Everyday Math materials for 5th grade by the school district and whoa, I personally didn't see many numbers in the books. It was all words. Browsing through it the main thing I thought was that you would need a phenomenal MATH teacher to make this live up to any of intentions and goals. I tutored some future teachers to help them pass the math portion of their degree. Holy moly, no way most elementary school teachers like or understand math enough to teach it well.

[Guest]

I read a really good book a couple of years ago called Math Wars by Carmen Latterell. I had found it at my library and I loved it. It addressed the swinging pendulum of math curricula in public schools. It was really interesting and it's not the kind of book that guilts you into a certain kind of math, it just shows you the pros and cons of traditional vs. mental-type maths. I thought it a very worthwhile read, and I'm thinking I'd like to read it again, now that I'm talking about it, lol.

 

ETA: It talks a lot about the new new math; that's why I brought this up. Definitely discouraged that one.

[stripe]

The math teachers I had in high school were all math majors who had decided for various reasons to go into high school teaching.

 

Mine had been a theater major. I was in the honors program.

[myfunnybunch]

Why frame it as a dichotomy? I don't think basic procedure and memorization are at odds with a strong conceptual understanding of math.

 

This, exactly.

 

And I agree with Sarah CB that math learning is most solid when we teach conceptually (and concretely) first, develop thinking and problem-solving skills, and work on memorizing/rote practice for fluency if needed.

 

Cat

[kiana]

I really think you need to have both computational and conceptual fluency. The students I see in my noncredit remedial classes are actually pretty good at arithmetic if it doesn't involve fractions. Even if it does involve fractions, if the problem is IN ISOLATION they can handle it (that is, if I say 'what is 1/2 + 1/3?' they can usually get it, but if it comes up inside another problem they will become flustered and give me an answer like 2/5. What they haven't the faintest idea about is why, and this really hampers them when we move to algebra.

 

If your answer to 'why is 1/2 = 2/4 = 3/6' is 'it just is', it's going to be really difficult to explain why (x+1)/(x-1) = [(x+1)(x+2)]/[(x-1)(x+2)] and why you can't just look at something like (2x+4)/(2x+3) and cross out the 2x on the top and the bottom.

 

If you don't know that 6x8 is 6 groups of 8, whereas 6+8 is a group of 6 and a group of 8, then word problems like "John worked for 6 hours at 8 dollars an hour. How much did he make?" are going to seem like nonsense, where you just pick a random operation and put the two numbers into it and hope for the best.

 

However, if you can't (for example) quickly write out factors of 6x8 in various orders, factoring something like 6x^2+15x+8 is going to be pretty difficult.

 

tl;dr summary -- you need both.

[LucyStoner]

 

(and have seen people who don't teach the distributive property because the students could just use order of operations :blink: )

 

 

What?! :confused1:

 

Sometimes they don't teach it because they themselves don't get it or know why it is important later.

 

It's stuff like that which make me quite certain homeschooling is the right decision for us.

[Cosmos]

I tutored some future teachers to help them pass the math portion of their degree. Holy moly, no way most elementary school teachers like or understand math enough to teach it well.

 

Yes, I had a similar experience in graduate school. It was very disheartening. I knew then, years before ds arrived, that we would absolutely be doing at least SOME home education.

[LucyStoner]

 

Yes, I had a similar experience in graduate school. It was very disheartening. I knew then, years before ds arrived, that we would absolutely be doing at least SOME home education.

 

Yeah, there were a number of people who really shocked me. The class was basically fractions and decimals and it was quite often a class people failed and retook. I recall thinking that someday I was going to have kids and someday maybe they would be taught by the people I was tutoring. Little did I realize then that instead I would put my math tutoring experience into teaching my own children. :laugh:

[kiana]

I have come back to add:

 

I really think that one of the strengths of Saxon is that it is usable by extremely weak teachers. There is little extraneous material, so the teacher does not have to know which parts are most important, and the incremental method together with the problem sets makes the teacher's explanation less important. With discovery learning, it is often the blind leading the blind.

 

Even if the children do not get a conceptual understanding of mathematics, they will at least be computationally strong, and hopefully someone else can work with the concepts later. I would rather have them computationally strong than learning neither at all, and if I were running an elementary school and could not fire mathematically weak teachers (or move them to being specialists in something where they were stronger) and hire strong ones, it would be high on my list.

[NASDAQ]

Miquon is actually the old-New Math.

 

I go with "Reform Math" for this set, so I'll use that here. I think if you get one of the Reform texts, and compare it to Singapore Math, it will allay a lot of your fears. Since you might not want to go to your local bookstore to purchase Everyday Math, check out this blog: http://oilf.blogspot.ca/2008/05/math-problems-of-week-grade-2.html

 

That said, most kids in Singapore are doing supplemental drill. If your child needs extra drill as you proceed through SM, you can do that.

[Roadrunner]

 

 

Mine had been a theater major. I was in the honors program.

 

Is this the issue in some states or is this a common problem? I thought you needed to take a significant number of upper math classes to get credentials in CA to teach math. This is scary.

[mathnmusic]

With discovery learning, it is often the blind leading the blind.

 

 

 

Embarrassed to admit, but this is how I've felt about teaching math to my ds9 many times. I mean, I want for my kids to get a rigorous math education that's solid in conceptual understanding, so we do MEP and Singapore, but *I* myself have a hard time figuring out some of those puzzle-challenges of MEP and the Singapore bar models.

[stripe]

Is this the issue in some states or is this a common problem? I thought you needed to take a significant number of upper math classes to get credentials in CA to teach math. This is scary.

I have no idea what the case is now, but my teacher was older than my parents when I was in high school and has long since retired. He was the top math teacher at the school. He was THE teacher for honors classes. And I attended a magnet school that was at the time considered one of the top in the country (not by me, mind you). The other teachers had vastly less experience than him and didn't teach above algebra. He had apparently taken a few math classes in college, but let us just say that Calculus was a grand disaster for all parties.

 

My feeling is that the law may be that someone needs such and such credentials to teach math, but then there are all these empty classrooms -- so someone has to teach them, and I have seen statistics about the huge numbers of underqualified math teachers in US schools.

According to the NCES study, which surveyed high school teachers during the 2007-2008 school year, fewer than half of chemistry and physics teachers majored in those subjects, and a quarter of math teachers don't hold math degrees. The problem extends to history, where less than two thirds of teachers hold a history degree. Conversely, 82 percent of English teachers, 90 percent of art teachers, and 95 percent of music teachers hold a bachelor's degree or higher in their field.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/08/many-stem-teachers-dont-hold-certifications

 

This study is even more frightening: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/budding-scientist/2012/07/13/math-teachers-feel-theyre-poorly-prepared/

 

I did go to college with a girl (ahead of me) who was a math major and was getting her elementary (multiple subject) credentials at the same time; otherwise all those intending to be teachers were going for a single subject credential.

[kiana]

 

 

Embarrassed to admit, but this is how I've felt about teaching math to my ds9 many times. I mean, I want for my kids to get a rigorous math education that's solid in conceptual understanding, so we do MEP and Singapore, but *I* myself have a hard time figuring out some of those puzzle-challenges of MEP and the Singapore bar models.

 

But you're *trying* to figure it out. You're thinking very hard about it and working to come up with the solutions! (right?) That makes a huge, huge difference, versus someone who's just reading from the book and praying for 'math time' to get over so 'we can do something fun.'

 

What I was really thinking about is people who hate math, fear math, and aren't willing to put in the work to figure it out.

[Momof3littles]

My high school calculus teacher took every sick and personal day he had ever accumulated before retiring at the end of the year. We had substitute teachers 2-3 days a week most weeks, and most had absolutely no ability to teach calc. They were usually history or English education majors. So we had to attempt to self teach using a pretty bad textbook, which was not good. Many kids in the class had parents who had taken higher level math, but my parents had not, and it was a disadvantage for sure. I thought I was an idiot because I was struggling a bit at that point. Then I took calc in college with a qualified and experienced instructor, and realized it really was not so bad and quite enjoyable when you actually had someone teaching you!

 

In terms of new math and new new math, I think it is mostly in the execution of the curriculum, and most teachers aren't really teaching things like EM well at all. I agree that it doesn't have to be a false dichotomy between mastery of facts and discovery.

[regentrude]

This study is even more frightening: http://blogs.scienti...oorly-prepared/

 

This:

 

Primary teachers felt academically prepared to teach only the topics they taught to their students. Even for those topics, about one-fourth to one-half of the teachers surveyed reported that they did not feel well prepared.

 

is truly frightening. Primary teachers means grades 1 through 3.

[creekland]

Even in high school most teachers I come across know what they are teaching, but no higher nor broader. An Alg teacher generally can't help a Pre-Calc student. A Physical Science teacher can't help with Chem nor Physics (beyond the most basic of basics).

 

I wish every teacher needed a degree in their subject (having classes well beyond high school level), then got teaching credentials (if we insist they are needed - I'm not convinced beyond some basic how people learn classes). I even think it could be good if most had to work a year or two in their field before teaching, but that's probably asking way too much. Instead, many get certified to teach and only have limited classes in what they are teaching. Some are motivated to keep up and learn more. Most aren't. They're too busy making lesson plans and grading and such things.

 

And yes, many of our students who aren't all that great at academics are encouraged to go into lower levels of teaching...

 

Homeschooling (as per the Hive) can work well because parents have limited students and are motivated to learn and understand - plus most of us will branch out on rabbit trails (or encourage our kids to do so). Then, of course, some outsource things they really don't know.

 

For public schools (teaching the masses), I wish they'd change what is important. We graduate tons of teachers, but many just aren't on the right path to learn what I'd like to see them have as per current requirements.

[Dana]

Embarrassed to admit, but this is how I've felt about teaching math to my ds9 many times. I mean, I want for my kids to get a rigorous math education that's solid in conceptual understanding, so we do MEP and Singapore, but *I* myself have a hard time figuring out some of those puzzle-challenges of MEP and the Singapore bar models.

 

 

I'm credentialed to teach math & have enough graduate hours in math to teach at the cc. I've taught basic algebra mostly, but I've also taught up through calculus there for the past 15 years.

I have had to go online and look up solutions to some of the CWP problems. Don't worry that you struggle!

 

Bar models are so awesome. As we've moved into CWP 5, I've started showing my son how the models translate so nicely into algebraic equations. Their concept of a "unit" is way cool. I am glad that I made ds show work for problems and required him to draw bar models early on.

[Arcadia]

Is this the issue in some states or is this a common problem? I thought you needed to take a significant number of upper math classes to get credentials in CA to teach math. This is scary.

 

I don't know about high school level. At K-8 level, there was a lot of teacher movement between subjects during the budget mess years where teachers were retrenched on less seniority basis. Some teachers end up teaching their weakest subjects. For K-5 level some teachers are not comfortable teaching math and/or science but they still have to do it. Older boy's teacher for 1st grade swap science with another teacher. She teach the other class Language Arts while the other teacher teaches her class science. For math the teacher just struggle through.

[Arcadia]

Even in high school most teachers I come across know what they are teaching, but no higher nor broader. An Alg teacher generally can't help a Pre-Calc student. A Physical Science teacher can't help with Chem nor Physics (beyond the most basic of basics).

 

I wish every teacher needed a degree in their subject (having classes well beyond high school level), then got teaching credentials (if we insist they are needed - I'm not convinced beyond some basic how people learn classes). I even think it could be good if most had to work a year or two in their field before teaching, but that's probably asking way too much.

 

Back home, the government entice engineers who are tired of the corporate/private sector to do a career change and teach high school math (up to calculus BC) and science (biology, physics, chemistry). Nothing like real world anecdotes during lectures to get kids more interested in STEM. Our high school lectures were 400 students to a lecturer.

The other reason for the govt move was to have more male role models in teaching at this impressionable age.

Here govt tend to be a stalemate all the time and nothing gets done :(

[Crimson Wife]

Is this the issue in some states or is this a common problem? I thought you needed to take a significant number of upper math classes to get credentials in CA to teach math. This is scary.

 

 

One of the few redeeming qualities of NCLB is that it tightened the requirements for secondary teachers to become fully qualified. My SIL had been assigned to teach jr. high math when she first started teaching even though her B.Ed. was in general elementary teaching. After the NCLB certification requirements came into effect in her state, she was required to get a Master's in mathematics education to continue teaching math.

[stripe]

This:

is truly frightening. Primary teachers means grades 1 through 3.

 

I've seen the same posts on this forum, though, people whose minds are boggled by MEP y1 problems or whatever. I think the depth of the problem is frightening.

 

I think most people don't AT ALL understand the basics, such as addition or place value, and then things are built on a really confused foundation. I remember the part in, was in Liping Ma's book, about asking teachers if it was ok to omit the trailing zero in multiplication intermediary steps, and lots of them got quite frantic about it, to the point I wanted to cry. And the teachers currently teaching elementary geometry who kept getting perimeter and area confused.

[Roadrunner]

 

I think most people don't AT ALL understand the basics, such as addition or place value, and then things are built on a really confused foundation.

I don't want to insult anybody, but how does one manage to do college level work in any field if they can't understand content meant for first through third graders? This doesn't add up in my head. I understand some CWP problems are difficult, but PS curruculum is far less complex.

 

I am glad they are tightening the regulations about credentials.

[creekland]

But the credentials for math (or science, or whatever) education is not the same as that for math/science/whatever. Education majors generally only take the most basic of classes - often at the level they want to teach. At some schools classes for education majors can't be taken for credit by other majors. It's the requirement for the education majors that need to go up IMO. Drop some of those lesson plan classes and put in real subject classes.

 

Someone who has a PhD in math from a top level school wouldn't be able to teach at a public high school because they didn't have the right classes. They could sub at most places, but not teach unless they go back and take those education courses. A few education courses are worthwhile - those that talk about how kids learn, but most? On the job training could easily suffice.

 

Even in the old days my uncle was a college prof who decided he wanted to settle down in a rural area and just teach high school. He had to go back to school to get credentialed to teach in high school. He ended up being the best math teacher that small school ever had (yes, I'm biased, but it's still true). I doubt he learned how to be so terrific because he went back for his certification. He knew the math, loved the kids, and was great at conveying concepts. That last part is mostly talent I think.

[SarahW]

When I was in college my friends and I would often snicker at the Education majors, especially the Early Elementary majors. We were philosophy/history/English majors and our profs were good, but very tough, we had to show original, critical, and creative thinking to even have a prayer of getting an A-. Meanwhile, the Ed majors were writing lesson plans about learning colors and shapes, and then bragging about their 4.0. I know a good lesson plan is worthwhile, but when we happened to take a class with them we were far from impressed. Anytime the prof asked them to think "outside the box" they always shut down and then started whining "I'm just going to go teach my kids later today (they love love me!)" Uh, okay, but is it so hard to think for just five minutes beyond the level of 2nd grade?

 

I don't remember exactly, but the Elem Ed majors didn't take much beyond the first year Gen Ed core that wasn't about making lesson plans and using transparencies.

 

I know there's good Elem Ed teachers, but I didn't meet any when I was in college. And this wasn't a public uni, this was a Christian college, and most of the Ed majors were looking for jobs in private Christian schools.

[stripe]

Someone who has a PhD in math from a top level school wouldn't be able to teach at a public high school because they didn't have the right classes. They could sub at most places, but not teach unless they go back and take those education courses. A few education courses are worthwhile - those that talk about how kids learn, but most? On the job training could easily suffice.

 

Right, and most PhDs in math/science don't take ANY teaching classes, so when they go to teach, they do get on the job training. Or they work as teaching assistants and get that training first hand. But somehow it is seen as less critical or totally unimportant (probably a mistake) for future professors to learn anything about teaching, whereas it is almost the ONLY thing future k-12 teachers are supposed to focus on. Neither is healthy.

I don't want to insult anybody, but how does one manage to do college level work in any field if they can't understand content meant for first through third graders?

 

I feel the same way, but I have met those people. It's not unlike the reaction I had to a report about how high illiteracy rates in Philadelphia are because there are so many high school dropouts -- in my opinion, learning to read is not normally the responsibility of a high school, so there are other forces at work and other organizations besides high schools to be held accountable.

 

I don't understand all the frantic screams about Singapore or MEP or any other math program, at the most basic levels. I haven't been stumped by anything in any elementary school program yet. I *really* don't think that qualifies me as a genius.

After the NCLB certification requirements came into effect in her state, she was required to get a Master's in mathematics education to continue teaching math.

 

 

Isn't this just degree inflation? If a bachelor's degree in math + a teaching certificate had the correct amount of rigor, it would be more than sufficient to teach middle school math. Why is there even such a thing as a master's degree in math education? College is the new high school and graduate work is the new college.

[Crimson Wife]

 

I don't understand all the frantic screams about Singapore or MEP or any other math program, at the most basic levels. I haven't been stumped by anything in any elementary school program yet. I *really* don't think that qualifies me as a genius.

 

Singapore can be tricky to teach if someone had a very procedural approach in his/her own math education. I got A's in math through calc 3 and high SAT & GRE math scores because I have a good memory and could quickly calculate the correct answer. But until I started HSing using Right Start, MM, and Singapore, I had no clue why the algorithms worked. Embarrassing, but I am sure I am not alone...

[Crimson Wife]

 

 

Isn't this just degree inflation? If a bachelor's degree in math + a teaching certificate had the correct amount of rigor, it would be more than sufficient to teach middle school math. Why is there even such a thing as a master's degree in math education? College is the new high school and graduate work is the new college.

 

 

My SIL was not a math major. She was a general elementary ed major assigned to teach jr. high math. A B.S. in math is very different from a B.Ed. in Elementary Education. I do think that requiring math teachers to actually complete college or graduate work in the subject is a good thing.

[stripe]

Singapore can be tricky to teach if someone had a very procedural approach in his/her own math education. I got A's in math through calc 3 and high SAT & GRE math scores because I have a good memory and could quickly calculate the correct answer. But until I started HSing using Right Start, MM, and Singapore, I had no clue why the algorithms worked. Embarrassing, but I am sure I am not alone...

 

I definitely agree that Singapore's Primary Math's word problems can be tricky to do or explain without using algebra. Nonetheless, I think it's troubling when a kid's first grade math homework confuses the student's parents. I do not think you are alone....but I think the fact that SO many people were taught by unprepared/underqualified teachers has led to an enormous mess and confusion. There is no reason for otherwise intelligent and educated people should be so mystified by basic math.

 

Anyone looking for a children's book with commentary on "new math," by the way, should read Eleanor Estes' "The Alley." It's in the first chapter.

A B.S. in math is very different from a B.Ed. in Elementary Education.

 

 

Oh, I totally agree, and I bet that a B.S (or BA) in Math is much tougher than the Masters in Math Ed, and that's where my beef is. I bet SIL would have been a better teacher with a bona-fide Math degree rather than the Math Ed. program.

[mathnmusic]

 

I don't understand all the frantic screams about Singapore or MEP or any other math program, at the most basic levels. I haven't been stumped by anything in any elementary school program yet. I *really* don't think that qualifies me as a genius.

 

I hope I'm not frantically screaming...or am I? Because honestly, it does freak me out when I can't figure out a problem from my son's year 3 MEP problem book,...or understand the bar models from his Singapore 3 book...not every problem, but occasionally they do pop up. Is it that I have a subpar understanding of math (which I don't mind admitting), or are these problems HARD?

[Dana]

Oh, I totally agree, and I bet that a B.S (or BA) in Math is much tougher than the Masters in Math Ed, and that's where my beef is. I bet SIL would have been a better teacher with a bona-fide Math degree rather than the Math Ed. program.

 

 

I honestly believe that my son at age 10 would be able to pass my graduate level education courses.

All of them.

 

I'd be very very surprised if he couldn't.

 

I'm very much in favor of ending education degrees. I say this mainly due to my degree (MAT... half of my credits are math graduate courses and half are education graduate courses).