| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dom" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2007 07:47:00 AM |
| Object: |
Not so easy to do the math |
Not so easy to do the math
Reformer.com
Brattleboro Reformer
Monday, June 11
Editor of the Reformer:
We the children of Grafton Elementary in order to form a more perfect
curriculum, establish justification, insure mathematical confidence,
provide for the common denominator, promote the general grade point
average, and secure addition, subtraction, multiplication and division
for our classrooms liberty and blessings of knowledge and wisdom, do
disdain the Everyday Mathematics program. With a lack of textbooks,
confusing curriculum, and heavy reliance on calculators, the Everyday
Math program has confused children for a long time, it is finally time
for a change. To help children succeed in math, we need a math program
that can succeed.
Everyday Math lacks the use of textbooks. This can be frustrating to
students because they are introduced to concepts without enough
information. The program is cost effective and the teachers are to
supply the students' information. But you have to think: The average
teacher at Grafton makes $45,000 per year or $21.60 per hour, and the
average textbook costs $60, or roughly three hours of a teacher's
time. Figure three hours work for a textbook vs. the amount of hours
spent a week tutoring children concepts and algorithms without access
to any additional information.
Aside from a lack of textbooks, most children (myself included) find
the structure of Everyday Math confusing. The circuitousness of the
program is hugely based on the idea of teaching the students many
methods of doing something then coming back to them separately after
being taught several other things that have no correspondence. Why
don't we just learn about one thing at a time, and truly learn it. The
argument is that exposure to the same thing over and over will help
the child to memorize the main concepts of addition, subtraction,
multiplication, and division, and that not everyone learns the same so
there is necessity to teach different methods. There is a huge
difference between methods of mathematics and teaching methods. Rather
than focus on finding many ways to solve a math problem, perhaps the
children would fare better if the focus was on teachers finding many
ways to teach math. This would involve no more than one algorithm, but
that algorithm would need to be taught well.
Everyday Math is heavily reliant on calculators. True, calculators are
an effective tool when it comes to solving math problems. However,
reliance on a calculator does not teach a child any thing -- except,
of course, how to push a button. The argument is that children need to
know how to use the tools at hand, not to mention calculators save
time and any math teacher will tell you how little time they have.
However, according to Mathematically Correct, a group of concerned
parents, educators, and mathematicians, the writers of Everyday Math
feel that calculators assist students and save time. In reference to
long division, they quote the teacher manual as stating "Mastery of
the intricacies of these algorithms is a huge undertaking, and one
that experience tells us is doomed to failure for many students. It
simply does not seem wise ... while nearly anyone can quickly and
accurately find a quotient with a calculator."
I find this philosophy particularly concerning. If a child never
learns long division, how will that child succeed in higher math? The
children of Grafton have had to deal with this concept and the
absurdities of Everyday Math for too long. Ask around. I know they'll
say that the program is confusing, and highly frustrating. Remember
that there are alternative programs that are much less confusing and
actually use textbooks. Thank you for the courtesy of your time.
Christopher Diak, 11
6th Grade, Grafton Elementary
Tom and Linda Diak
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Peters" |
|
| Title: Re: Not so easy to do the math |
15 Jun 2007 05:54:03 PM |
|
|
In article <1181911620.240057.58590@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
Not so easy to do the math
Reformer.com
Brattleboro Reformer
Monday, June 11
Editor of the Reformer:
We the children of Grafton Elementary in order to form a more perfect
curriculum, establish justification, insure mathematical confidence,
provide for the common denominator, promote the general grade point
average, and secure addition, subtraction, multiplication and division
for our classrooms liberty and blessings of knowledge and wisdom, do
disdain the Everyday Mathematics program. With a lack of textbooks,
confusing curriculum, and heavy reliance on calculators, the Everyday
Math program has confused children for a long time, it is finally time
for a change. To help children succeed in math, we need a math program
that can succeed.
Everyday Math lacks the use of textbooks. This can be frustrating to
students because they are introduced to concepts without enough
information. The program is cost effective and the teachers are to
supply the students' information. But you have to think: The average
teacher at Grafton makes $45,000 per year or $21.60 per hour, and the
average textbook costs $60, or roughly three hours of a teacher's
time. Figure three hours work for a textbook vs. the amount of hours
spent a week tutoring children concepts and algorithms without access
to any additional information.
Aside from a lack of textbooks, most children (myself included) find
the structure of Everyday Math confusing. The circuitousness of the
program is hugely based on the idea of teaching the students many
methods of doing something then coming back to them separately after
being taught several other things that have no correspondence. Why
don't we just learn about one thing at a time, and truly learn it. The
argument is that exposure to the same thing over and over will help
the child to memorize the main concepts of addition, subtraction,
multiplication, and division, and that not everyone learns the same so
there is necessity to teach different methods. There is a huge
difference between methods of mathematics and teaching methods. Rather
than focus on finding many ways to solve a math problem, perhaps the
children would fare better if the focus was on teachers finding many
ways to teach math. This would involve no more than one algorithm, but
that algorithm would need to be taught well.
Everyday Math is heavily reliant on calculators. True, calculators are
an effective tool when it comes to solving math problems. However,
reliance on a calculator does not teach a child any thing -- except,
of course, how to push a button. The argument is that children need to
know how to use the tools at hand, not to mention calculators save
time and any math teacher will tell you how little time they have.
However, according to Mathematically Correct, a group of concerned
parents, educators, and mathematicians, the writers of Everyday Math
feel that calculators assist students and save time. In reference to
long division, they quote the teacher manual as stating "Mastery of
the intricacies of these algorithms is a huge undertaking, and one
that experience tells us is doomed to failure for many students. It
simply does not seem wise ... while nearly anyone can quickly and
accurately find a quotient with a calculator."
I find this philosophy particularly concerning. If a child never
learns long division, how will that child succeed in higher math? The
children of Grafton have had to deal with this concept and the
absurdities of Everyday Math for too long. Ask around. I know they'll
say that the program is confusing, and highly frustrating. Remember
that there are alternative programs that are much less confusing and
actually use textbooks. Thank you for the courtesy of your time.
Christopher Diak, 11
6th Grade, Grafton Elementary
Tom and Linda Diak
One solution is to supplement Everyday Math with lessons on learning
mental computational skills.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Not so easy to do the math |
20 Jun 2007 08:08:17 PM |
|
|
In article <1181911620.240057.58590@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
Not so easy to do the math
Reformer.com
Brattleboro Reformer
Monday, June 11
Editor of the Reformer:
We the children of Grafton Elementary in order to form a more perfect
curriculum, establish justification, insure mathematical confidence,
provide for the common denominator, promote the general grade point
average, and secure addition, subtraction, multiplication and division
for our classrooms liberty and blessings of knowledge and wisdom, do
disdain the Everyday Mathematics program. With a lack of textbooks,
confusing curriculum, and heavy reliance on calculators, the Everyday
Math program has confused children for a long time, it is finally time
for a change. To help children succeed in math, we need a math program
that can succeed.
I agree with your last statement, but not too much with the
rest. I too disdain that program, as well as more than 99%
of the other programs. I am considered a rather good
mathematician, both in the abstract and the concrete.
Understanding the procedures of addition, subtraction,
multiplication, and division will in NO way help you to
understand what they mean. The procedures in no way
elucidate any concepts except how to carry out the
procedures, and there are even great mathematicians who
cannot be trusted with arithmetic.
The basic concepts are that of numbers, and their structure.
Addition and multiplication are DEFINED using that structure,
and subtraction and division in terms of those. The structure
of the integers does not involve the way integers are written
down as a sequence of Arabic numerals; this is a derived
representation. You might benefit in understanding from
starting with the definitions and producing the addition and
multiplication tables, but not by memorizing them; that just
gets you speed, and knowing when to add is far more important
than knowing how to add.
Everyday Math lacks the use of textbooks. This can be frustrating to
students because they are introduced to concepts without enough
information. The program is cost effective and the teachers are to
supply the students' information. But you have to think: The average
teacher at Grafton makes $45,000 per year or $21.60 per hour, and the
average textbook costs $60, or roughly three hours of a teacher's
time. Figure three hours work for a textbook vs. the amount of hours
spent a week tutoring children concepts and algorithms without access
to any additional information.
I agree about lack of textbooks. With a good textbook, a
reasonable student essentially does not need a teacher. But
are there any good textbooks?
Aside from a lack of textbooks, most children (myself included) find
the structure of Everyday Math confusing. The circuitousness of the
program is hugely based on the idea of teaching the students many
methods of doing something then coming back to them separately after
being taught several other things that have no correspondence. Why
don't we just learn about one thing at a time, and truly learn it. The
argument is that exposure to the same thing over and over will help
the child to memorize the main concepts of addition, subtraction,
multiplication, and division, and that not everyone learns the same so
there is necessity to teach different methods. There is a huge
difference between methods of mathematics and teaching methods. Rather
than focus on finding many ways to solve a math problem, perhaps the
children would fare better if the focus was on teachers finding many
ways to teach math. This would involve no more than one algorithm, but
that algorithm would need to be taught well.
On this you are very wrong. For one thing, one does not
memorize concepts, but understands them when the light goes
on suddently. Read what I wrote above about the concepts.
As for algorithms, they are definitely NOT what is to be
learned, and the fact that problems can be solved in many
ways is "standard" in mathematics. Learn algebraic notation,
do not hesitate to use many variables, these should be taught
in first grade not as mathematics but language, and most
problems can be solved by using the one rule that the same
operation applied to equal entities gets equal results.
There can be many ways of going about this; in some problems
some will work, and in other problems different ones need to
be used.
Everyday Math is heavily reliant on calculators. True, calculators are
an effective tool when it comes to solving math problems. However,
reliance on a calculator does not teach a child any thing -- except,
of course, how to push a button. The argument is that children need to
know how to use the tools at hand, not to mention calculators save
time and any math teacher will tell you how little time they have.
They should know what the operations mean, and with a
calculator, for division, and sometimes multiplication,
there are errors. You should know why they are there.
However, according to Mathematically Correct, a group of concerned
parents, educators, and mathematicians, the writers of Everyday Math
feel that calculators assist students and save time.
This ios most definitely true, as well as for other things.
In reference to
long division, they quote the teacher manual as stating "Mastery of
the intricacies of these algorithms is a huge undertaking, and one
that experience tells us is doomed to failure for many students. It
simply does not seem wise ... while nearly anyone can quickly and
accurately find a quotient with a calculator."
From this, I am inclined to disrespect those who wrote the
manual. The algorithm is not complicated if one understands
multiplication and subtraction, and understands what one wants to
get and why. Concepts can be taught, but the success in teaching
them to those who have learned facts and algorithms is poor. Don't
they teach you division with a quotient and a remainder? Once you
understand that, there is little problem with long division.
I find this philosophy particularly concerning. If a child never
learns long division, how will that child succeed in higher math?
The first time someone with come into something similar to long
division is in the division of polynomials and power series, for
which the algorithm is similar and similarly derived. Otherwise,
one can easily get through calculus without it.
By the way, this was even true BC (before computers). Long
division was rarely done, and if the arithmetic got difficult,
tables of logarithms were used to get the answer to a few places.
The
children of Grafton have had to deal with this concept and the
absurdities of Everyday Math for too long. Ask around. I know they'll
say that the program is confusing, and highly frustrating. Remember
that there are alternative programs that are much less confusing and
actually use textbooks. Thank you for the courtesy of your time.
Christopher Diak, 11
6th Grade, Grafton Elementary
Tom and Linda Diak
One can teach an algorithmic program without understanding any
of the concepts and get away with it. What has happened is
that those who at best have some very vague ideas have decided
to stick in what is hoped will give you the connections, and
they stretch it out without ever stating anything about the
concepts.
This posting may be distributed, provided I am credited, and
provided the disclaimer below is included.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dom" |
|
| Title: Re: Not so easy to do the math |
15 Jun 2007 07:50:35 AM |
|
|
The URL is:
http://www.reformer.com/ci_6111341?source=most_emailed
On Jun 15, 8:47 am, Dom <D...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
Not so easy to do the math
Reformer.com
Brattleboro Reformer
Monday, June 11
Editor of the Reformer:
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Donna Metler" |
|
| Title: Re: Not so easy to do the math |
15 Jun 2007 03:05:14 PM |
|
|
Uh, not only does Everyday math have textbooks (many of which are
consumable, especially in the lower grades), there are a ton of other
teacher materials, "journals" (ie workbooks), worksheets and other stuff.
That doesn't mean it's a good math curriculum, but teachers aren't exactly
reinventing the wheel
--
Donna DeVore Metler
Orff Music Specialist/Kindermusik
Mother to Angel Brian Anthony 1/1/2002, 22 weeks, severe PE/HELLP
And Allison Joy, 11/25/04 (35 weeks, PIH, Pre-term labor)
.
|
|
|
| User: "LAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Not so easy to do the math |
16 Jun 2007 12:37:02 PM |
|
|
"Donna Metler" <dmmetler@xxxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:AI-dnd6Mm_4wc-_bnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Uh, not only does Everyday math have textbooks (many of which are
consumable, especially in the lower grades), there are a ton of other
teacher materials, "journals" (ie workbooks), worksheets and other stuff.
That doesn't mean it's a good math curriculum, but teachers aren't exactly
reinventing the wheel
--
Donna DeVore Metler
Orff Music Specialist/Kindermusik
Mother to Angel Brian Anthony 1/1/2002, 22 weeks, severe PE/HELLP
And Allison Joy, 11/25/04 (35 weeks, PIH, Pre-term labor)
You may be correct, perhaps there are textbooks for EM. However, when this
series was introduced to my son's school in grades K-4, there were NO
textbooks. We told this was the standard practice for this series and no
textbooks are or were issued for student use. Perhaps this was just a local
district choice, but that's not what we were led to believe.
LAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Not so easy to do the math |
21 Jun 2007 11:12:21 AM |
|
|
In article <odVci.22$YH3.3@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
LAH <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
"Donna Metler" <dmmetler@xxxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:AI-dnd6Mm_4wc-_bnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Uh, not only does Everyday math have textbooks (many of which are
consumable, especially in the lower grades), there are a ton of other
teacher materials, "journals" (ie workbooks), worksheets and other stuff.
That doesn't mean it's a good math curriculum, but teachers aren't exactly
reinventing the wheel
--
Donna DeVore Metler
Orff Music Specialist/Kindermusik
Mother to Angel Brian Anthony 1/1/2002, 22 weeks, severe PE/HELLP
And Allison Joy, 11/25/04 (35 weeks, PIH, Pre-term labor)
You may be correct, perhaps there are textbooks for EM. However, when this
series was introduced to my son's school in grades K-4, there were NO
textbooks. We told this was the standard practice for this series and no
textbooks are or were issued for student use. Perhaps this was just a local
district choice, but that's not what we were led to believe.
LAH
As I commented in my other (long) response, a good student with
a fair textbook essentially only needs a teacher to answer questions,
and to clarify concepts if they are present. With a good textbook,
and alas there are few of them, even a fair student can do that.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
