| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dom" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2007 09:51:21 AM |
| Object: |
Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up |
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NSZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5NzE0OTg5NCZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTQ=
Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up
Sunday, June 10, 2007
By KATHLEEN CARROLL, STAFF WRITER
High-achieving parents, worried that non-traditional math lessons will
cause their children to fall behind, are demanding a return to the
basics.
That scenario is playing out in Ridgewood and across the nation, as
parents, educators and the nation's mathematicians clash over reform
math programs -- what critics call "fuzzy math." The debate has become
particularly heated as test after test shows U.S. students lag
children in Singapore and China.
Reform math allows students to solve problems however they wish and
uses everyday language -- think "combine" instead of "add." It
encourages independent reasoning and computation using familiar
objects, so students may solve word problems by drawing a series of
circles and counting up the answer. And it is unsettling to many
parents, who memorized multiplication tables and slogged through
arithmetic worksheets when they were in school.
For parent and veteran teacher Sarah-Kate Maskin, the worries began
when her 8-year-old daughter didn't know how to write out a
subtraction problem.
"That's not taught," she said. "They teach mental math strategies for
breaking apart numbers. I'm not interested in my kindergarten-through-
fifth-grader being a deep mathematical thinker. I want them to know
their multiplication facts, their long division."
Echoing ongoing math battles in New York City and Seattle, nearly 200
Ridgewood parents have signed a petition demanding the district adopt
a traditional curriculum. Board of Education meetings and Internet
message boards feature lengthy math debates. Many families are
ordering materials online and hosting afternoon math classes at home,
or signing children up for private tutoring on the weekends.
Elizabeth Gnall uses workbooks from top-scoring Singapore's math
curriculum with her two school-aged children, who also attend a local
Kumon tutoring center. The computation practice and worksheets from
both programs allow for mastery and success in small bites, and that
builds confidence, she said. Better yet, her children enjoy it.
"I know reformists like to call it drill and kill," she said, "but I
look at it as drill for skill."
Reform math programs are used in more than 100 New Jersey school
districts, popular among educators because skills are learned in real-
world contexts and higher-order thinking is encouraged. They are also
intended to have a low intimidation factor and may be more accessible
to students -- particularly girls and African-American students -- who
are less likely to enroll in higher-level math courses.
A report last year by the influential National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics struck a new balance in the reform-versus-tradition
debate: The council said teachers should focus on math facts and
mastering a limited set of skills each year. That was a retreat from
its 1989 recommendations, which said instruction should instill math-
literate reasoning on a variety of topics while allowing students to
use calculators or draw pictures to solve problems as they wished.
No matter the curriculum, improving math education in the United
States is a front-and-center goal. Citing global competitiveness, the
Bush administration last year assembled a new panel to study the
teaching of math. Math Now, a new $250 million federal grant program,
will fund high-level math instruction that follows the panel's
recommendations, expected sometime this year. In New Jersey and 28
other states, educators are working to make high school math education
more rigorous, part of the national American Diploma Project.
Many mathematicians and engineers have explicitly declared certain
reform programs as fundamentally flawed and overly simplistic. A
leading critic, research mathematician and Stanford University
professor R. James Milgram, says programs such as Everyday Math, and
Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (known as TERC), both of
which are used in Ridgewood, are too reliant on calculators and don't
thoroughly teach students basic number facts or functions.
"Our view is colored by what we see," Milgram explained. "Students are
coming to the university worse prepared than any time we can
remember. ... They simply cannot do math at the university level."
Any instruction that fails to strike a balance between skill-
development and greater understanding is insufficient, no matter what
the extreme, said Joseph Rosenstein, a math professor at Rutgers
University who reviewed the national recommendations and helped write
New Jersey's math instruction standards. He recalled college calculus
classes in which his students entered with top-notch computational
skills but were unable to extrapolate their skills or grasp numerical
logic, patterns or meaning.
"One of the themes of the math wars is that some people argue all for
skills, and some argue all for understanding," he said. "Everybody
agrees that both are important. You can't apply math without skills.
But simply being able to carry out rote procedures won't enable to you
to carry out the sorts of procedures you'll need in the future."
That delicate balance was on display last week in Matthew Connelly's
third-grade classroom at Travell School in Ridgewood, which uses TERC
Investigations materials.
A morning math lesson on volume included visual cues and group
discussion, individual on-paper arithmetic, and problem-solving with
hand-held objects. Connelly asked his students to imagine a box that
would fit 32 cubes, and students chatted together to determine its
dimensions.
Then, they worked in small groups, building boxes out of 32 colored
cubes or doing more abstract computation on paper. Some students chose
to solve problems using addition, while others were using their
multiplication skills.
"You know what I like? We're using our multiplication skills to think
about this math," Connelly told the class. "It's not just shapes, it's
multiplication too."
Despite the controversy, the district does not plan to stop using
TERC. This summer, Travell teachers will review and prepare to use an
updated edition that includes more traditional arithmetic practice.
The school will also include parents in that conversation, as well as
draw input from surveys sent home this year.
"We want for [students] to accurately and efficiently get the answer,
but also to go beyond that," said Regina Botsford, assistant
superintendent for curriculum. "The problems of tomorrow are complex.
They will need new and novel solutions, to problems for which the
solution is not immediately obvious."
E-mail:
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up |
10 Jun 2007 12:34:50 PM |
|
|
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
High-achieving parents, worried that non-traditional math lessons will
cause their children to fall behind,
Fall behind what? If all kids are studying the same thing, why would
the high achievers fall behind.
If they mean "fall behind Singapore", well that is what the old way of
teaching caused. We didn't suddenly fall behind Singapore the year
before TIMMS in 1983, any more than we suddenly fell way behind Russia
when Sputnik was launched in 1957.
We fell behind in part because unlike other nations we do NOT have a
centrally-planned public education system, so that even if one school
does it rights, many others won't. We fell behind because in order to
be inclusive of all kids (and to avoid discrimination that tended to
track kids based on skin color or gender instead of on ability, we did
not track some kids faster than others).
are demanding a return to the basics.\
But of course they don't know that "the basics" are a solution to the
problem, or even what "the problem" is.
That scenario is playing out in Ridgewood and across the nation, as
parents, educators and the nation's mathematicians clash over reform
math programs -- what critics call "fuzzy math." The debate has become
particularly heated as test after test shows U.S. students lag
children in Singapore and China.
Of course we lagged even before "fuzzy math" was proposed. and
probably lag by less today than we did then.
Reform math allows students to solve problems however they wish
They have to be algorithms that solve the problem, though.
and uses everyday language -- think "combine" instead of "add."
This hearkens back to what I said - that the "old-fashioned" methods
stated problems already in formulaic English, so that kids did not
need to understand the problem in order to mechanically solve it.
It encourages independent reasoning and computation using familiar
objects, so students may solve word problems by drawing a series of
circles and counting up the answer. And it is unsettling to many
parents, who memorized multiplication tables and slogged through
arithmetic worksheets when they were in school.
.... and made us last among nations because many of them learned to
hate and to avoid math.
"That's not taught," she said. "They teach mental math strategies for
breaking apart numbers. I'm not interested in my kindergarten-through-
fifth-grader being a deep mathematical thinker. I want them to know
their multiplication facts, their long division."
Note the words. She is NOT a fan of Herman's teaching of concepts.
She wants her kids to learn to be calculators, and not mathematicians.
Elizabeth Gnall uses workbooks from top-scoring Singapore's math
curriculum with her two school-aged children,
This is because of the myth that it is Singapore's curriculum, and not
its culture, and the structure of its educational system which is
intended to mass-produce educational-clones rather than thinking
individuals. These parents don't really want educational-clones; they
want "winners".
Many mathematicians and engineers have explicitly declared certain
reform programs as fundamentally flawed and overly simplistic.
And many mathematicians have labeled the other mathematicians as being
fundamentally flawed and overly simplistic.
"Our view is colored by what we see," Milgram explained. "Students are
coming to the university worse prepared than any time we can
remember. ... They simply cannot do math at the university level."
Which is completely false. We are simply expecting MORE students to
come to university able to do a HIGHER level of math at the university
level than we expected 50 years ago, when most college students
usually took algebra and not calculus.
Any instruction that fails to strike a balance between skill-
development and greater understanding is insufficient, no matter what
the extreme, said Joseph Rosenstein, a math professor at Rutgers
University who reviewed the national recommendations and helped write
New Jersey's math instruction standards.
Note that this IS a mathematician that helped write the standards.
Not the fairy tale of Hermans that mathematicians have been displaced
by "educationists" who have no skill in math.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up |
11 Jun 2007 03:11:25 PM |
|
|
In article <peco63davr3bpqg3tdf2a8crve77jcvvbk@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
High-achieving parents, worried that non-traditional math lessons will
cause their children to fall behind,
...............
Of course we lagged even before "fuzzy math" was proposed. and
probably lag by less today than we did then.
Reform math allows students to solve problems however they wish
They have to be algorithms that solve the problem, though.
WHY? If one has used the principles to derive the
algorithm, it may or may not be worth remembering.
Memorizing the algorithm is useful only if one is
going to be a clerk doing lots of similar problems,
but in that case, a machine can do it.
and uses everyday language -- think "combine" instead of "add."
Does combine mean the same? Sometimes it does, and
sometimes it does not.
This hearkens back to what I said - that the "old-fashioned" methods
stated problems already in formulaic English, so that kids did not
need to understand the problem in order to mechanically solve it.
It encourages independent reasoning and computation using familiar
objects, so students may solve word problems by drawing a series of
circles and counting up the answer. And it is unsettling to many
parents, who memorized multiplication tables and slogged through
arithmetic worksheets when they were in school.
... and made us last among nations because many of them learned to
hate and to avoid math.
"That's not taught," she said. "They teach mental math strategies for
breaking apart numbers. I'm not interested in my kindergarten-through-
fifth-grader being a deep mathematical thinker. I want them to know
their multiplication facts, their long division."
Note the words. She is NOT a fan of Herman's teaching of concepts.
She wants her kids to learn to be calculators, and not mathematicians.
Elizabeth Gnall uses workbooks from top-scoring Singapore's math
curriculum with her two school-aged children,
This is because of the myth that it is Singapore's curriculum, and not
its culture, and the structure of its educational system which is
intended to mass-produce educational-clones rather than thinking
individuals. These parents don't really want educational-clones; they
want "winners".
Many mathematicians and engineers have explicitly declared certain
reform programs as fundamentally flawed and overly simplistic.
And many mathematicians have labeled the other mathematicians as being
fundamentally flawed and overly simplistic.
"Our view is colored by what we see," Milgram explained. "Students are
coming to the university worse prepared than any time we can
remember. ... They simply cannot do math at the university level."
Which is completely false. We are simply expecting MORE students to
come to university able to do a HIGHER level of math at the university
level than we expected 50 years ago, when most college students
usually took algebra and not calculus.
Any instruction that fails to strike a balance between skill-
development and greater understanding is insufficient, no matter what
the extreme, said Joseph Rosenstein, a math professor at Rutgers
University who reviewed the national recommendations and helped write
New Jersey's math instruction standards.
I have looked up Rosenstein to the extent I can;
his research record was not there, but for the
last 20 years, he has been doing nothing but
education. Is he a mathematician?
Not all faculty members, even at major universities,
are still active mathematicians. Also, not all
mathematicians have worked with foundations; I would
say that most have ignored them. This is possible.
Note that this IS a mathematician that helped write the standards.
Not the fairy tale of Hermans that mathematicians have been displaced
by "educationists" who have no skill in math.
The educationists have skill at arithmetic, and
possibly using memorized algorithms. They have
no skill at understanding what they are doing,
and why.
I have never stated that one should not learn how
to do addition and multiplication quickly, and that
the method of doing long division, which follows
easily from properties of numbers, becomes "natural".
Whether they should memorize the tables is another
matter, and whether they should spend hundreds of
hours developing speed is certainly not worth it.
However, they should construct tables from the basics
of counting for several bases.
I have done arithmetic in other bases, and I have
not learned the tables for any of them, except for
base 2, which nobody can help learning.
--
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: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up |
11 Jun 2007 03:48:19 PM |
|
|
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <peco63davr3bpqg3tdf2a8crve77jcvvbk@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
High-achieving parents, worried that non-traditional math lessons will
cause their children to fall behind,
Of course we lagged even before "fuzzy math" was proposed. and
probably lag by less today than we did then.
Reform math allows students to solve problems however they wish
They have to be algorithms that solve the problem, though.
WHY? If one has used the principles to derive the
algorithm, it may or may not be worth remembering.
Memorizing the algorithm is useful only if one is
going to be a clerk doing lots of similar problems,
but in that case, a machine can do it.
Who said anything about memorizing an algorithm? Not me.
They have to USE some algorithm to solve the problem.
That algorithm may be as inefficient as "guess and check", but it is
still an algorithm - a sequence of steps one goes through to solve a
problem.
and uses everyday language -- think "combine" instead of "add."
Does combine mean the same? Sometimes it does, and
sometimes it does not.
Which is why "word problems" are as much a study in reading
comprehension as they are mathematics.
It is the inability to think rigorously and exactly about
non-mathematical subjects that stands in the way of many kids trying
to "formulate the problem symbolically" as you would have it. The
sloppiness of language as a means of communication encourages
non-rigor.
Any instruction that fails to strike a balance between skill-
development and greater understanding is insufficient, no matter what
the extreme, said Joseph Rosenstein, a math professor at Rutgers
University who reviewed the national recommendations and helped write
New Jersey's math instruction standards.
I have looked up Rosenstein to the extent I can;
his research record was not there, but for the
last 20 years, he has been doing nothing but
education. Is he a mathematician?
If he has a PhD in Mathematics, then he has been judged by your peers
to be a mathematician. If he was given a professorate in Mathematics,
then he was deemed qualified to profess in the subject at the
university level (which usually requires such a PhD)
Not all faculty members, even at major universities,
are still active mathematicians.
As long as they have the degree, they are a "mathematician" even if
they aren't active.
YOU are the one that claims that someone who has learned the concepts
doesn't forget them. A PhD presumably means that some people with the
authority to do so, have asserted that he learned the concepts to the
highest level that such is evaluated.
Also, not all mathematicians have worked with foundations;
So? There is more to mathematics than "foundations".
Note that this IS a mathematician that helped write the standards.
Not the fairy tale of Hermans that mathematicians have been displaced
by "educationists" who have no skill in math.
The educationists have skill at arithmetic, and
possibly using memorized algorithms. They have
no skill at understanding what they are doing,
and why.
Are you claiming that some university committed fraud by granting him
a PhD? Or by granting him a professorate in Mathematics?
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up |
12 Jun 2007 12:10:07 PM |
|
|
In article <2gcr63hthaunp4qqjhfesvnuh5i9vek43n@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <peco63davr3bpqg3tdf2a8crve77jcvvbk@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
....................
Who said anything about memorizing an algorithm? Not me.
They have to USE some algorithm to solve the problem.
Do they? There is often a large choice of a sequence of
steps to solve a problem. The concepts and theorems
derived from them will constrain the steps, but will not
provide a single clear-cut algorithm. I construct methods
of solution quite often, and for various reasons, even
different methods for the same problem.
That algorithm may be as inefficient as "guess and check", but it is
still an algorithm - a sequence of steps one goes through to solve a
problem.
and uses everyday language -- think "combine" instead of "add."
Does combine mean the same? Sometimes it does, and
sometimes it does not.
Which is why "word problems" are as much a study in reading
comprehension as they are mathematics.
It is the inability to think rigorously and exactly about
non-mathematical subjects that stands in the way of many kids trying
to "formulate the problem symbolically" as you would have it. The
sloppiness of language as a means of communication encourages
non-rigor.
This is why variables and "mathematical notation" should
be introduced as early as possible, and not merely for
mathematics. The symbolic formulation of material can
start in first grade, or even kindergarten, without
using anything mathematical. Does it make sense for
children to have no precise language until their teens
in many cases?
Any instruction that fails to strike a balance between skill-
development and greater understanding is insufficient, no matter what
the extreme, said Joseph Rosenstein, a math professor at Rutgers
University who reviewed the national recommendations and helped write
New Jersey's math instruction standards.
I have looked up Rosenstein to the extent I can;
his research record was not there, but for the
last 20 years, he has been doing nothing but
education. Is he a mathematician?
If he has a PhD in Mathematics, then he has been judged by your peers
to be a mathematician.
Possibly a "union" mathematician, but there are
mathematicians and there are mathematicians. At
one meeting of the American Mathematical Society,
a faculty member from the University of Michigan
stated that only 40% of their PhD's had ever done
anything after their thesis.
If he was given a professorate in Mathematics,
then he was deemed qualified to profess in the subject at the
university level (which usually requires such a PhD)
As I said, I have not seen his research record.
Far too many faculty do enough research to get
tenure, or sometimes enough for a full professorship,
but then stop and go into teaching and administration.
Since they are no longer involved with scholarship and
research, the ones who are are, unfortunately, glad
to have them take over, to the detriment of both the
students and the faculty.
Not all faculty members, even at major universities,
are still active mathematicians.
As long as they have the degree, they are a "mathematician" even if
they aren't active.
I have commented on degrees and other certificates
as mere pieces of paper.
YOU are the one that claims that someone who has learned the concepts
doesn't forget them. A PhD presumably means that some people with the
authority to do so, have asserted that he learned the concepts to the
highest level that such is evaluated.
There is lots one can do with a narrow set of non-basic
concepts, only learned "intuitively". For teaching, it
is desirable to have the precisely.
Also, not all mathematicians have worked with foundations;
So? There is more to mathematics than "foundations".
Note that this IS a mathematician that helped write the standards.
Not the fairy tale of Hermans that mathematicians have been displaced
by "educationists" who have no skill in math.
The educationists have skill at arithmetic, and
possibly using memorized algorithms. They have
no skill at understanding what they are doing,
and why.
Are you claiming that some university committed fraud by granting him
a PhD? Or by granting him a professorate in Mathematics?
No. The process is far from perfect, and many
people essentially give up on research and scholarship
and settle down to teach as they have been doing for
decades. This is NOT good.
--
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: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up |
12 Jun 2007 02:49:21 PM |
|
|
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
They have to USE some algorithm to solve the problem.
Do they? There is often a large choice of a sequence of
steps to solve a problem.
That is a large choice of algorithms.
The concepts and theorems
derived from them will constrain the steps, but will not
provide a single clear-cut algorithm.
It will provide a large choice of them.
I construct methods of solution quite often,
In other words, you construct algorithms.
and for various reasons, even
different methods for the same problem.
Several algorithms for the same problem.
Does combine mean the same? Sometimes it does, and
sometimes it does not.
Which is why "word problems" are as much a study in reading
comprehension as they are mathematics.
It is the inability to think rigorously and exactly about
non-mathematical subjects that stands in the way of many kids trying
to "formulate the problem symbolically" as you would have it. The
sloppiness of language as a means of communication encourages
non-rigor.
This is why variables and "mathematical notation" should
be introduced as early as possible, and not merely for
mathematics. The symbolic formulation of material can
start in first grade, or even kindergarten, without
using anything mathematical. Does it make sense for
children to have no precise language until their teens
in many cases?
Since the language is inherently imprecise, the only place where
precise language is usable is in preformulated math problems.
People do not speak mathematically unless they are solving a
mathematical problem. They don't WANT to do so.
If he was given a professorate in Mathematics,
then he was deemed qualified to profess in the subject at the
university level (which usually requires such a PhD)
As I said, I have not seen his research record.
Far too many faculty do enough research to get
tenure, or sometimes enough for a full professorship,
but then stop and go into teaching and administration.
Good. That's what we pay them to do. Let the alumni or the grants
issuers pay for their research.
Not all faculty members, even at major universities,
are still active mathematicians.
As long as they have the degree, they are a "mathematician" even if
they aren't active.
I have commented on degrees and other certificates
as mere pieces of paper.
If your peers have lower standards for issuing a piece of paper to
them than you think appropriate, take it up with them. If you can't
convince THEM, you certainly won't convince US.
Are you claiming that some university committed fraud by granting him
a PhD? Or by granting him a professorate in Mathematics?
No. The process is far from perfect, and many
people essentially give up on research and scholarship
and settle down to teach as they have been doing for
decades. This is NOT good.
That is what "we the people" want them to do. I don't see that
changing.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up |
12 Jun 2007 09:18:08 PM |
|
|
In article <4ltt63hmbh3fd5cejfp9q8nvnqk4h85bi9@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
They have to USE some algorithm to solve the problem.
Do they? There is often a large choice of a sequence of
steps to solve a problem.
That is a large choice of algorithms.
The concepts and theorems
derived from them will constrain the steps, but will not
provide a single clear-cut algorithm.
It will provide a large choice of them.
I construct methods of solution quite often,
In other words, you construct algorithms.
No; I may not use the algorithm again, even for
that type of problem. Often the I used is too
crude to even be included in a list of algorithms.
and for various reasons, even
different methods for the same problem.
Several algorithms for the same problem.
And several approaches nor remembered again.
Does combine mean the same? Sometimes it does, and
sometimes it does not.
Which is why "word problems" are as much a study in reading
comprehension as they are mathematics.
It is the inability to think rigorously and exactly about
non-mathematical subjects that stands in the way of many kids trying
to "formulate the problem symbolically" as you would have it. The
sloppiness of language as a means of communication encourages
non-rigor.
This is why variables and "mathematical notation" should
be introduced as early as possible, and not merely for
mathematics. The symbolic formulation of material can
start in first grade, or even kindergarten, without
using anything mathematical. Does it make sense for
children to have no precise language until their teens
in many cases?
Since the language is inherently imprecise, the only place where
precise language is usable is in preformulated math problems.
People do not speak mathematically unless they are solving a
mathematical problem. They don't WANT to do so.
Or could they not speak precisely because they have no
idea how to do so. Even more so, attempting to be
precise in English or any other "natural" language is
so convoluted that the ideas cannot be communicated
orally, and only with great difficulty in writing.
"Mathematical" notation is a way to get around this,
and this is all that it is, a linguistic extension.
If he was given a professorate in Mathematics,
then he was deemed qualified to profess in the subject at the
university level (which usually requires such a PhD)
As I said, I have not seen his research record.
Far too many faculty do enough research to get
tenure, or sometimes enough for a full professorship,
but then stop and go into teaching and administration.
Good. That's what we pay them to do. Let the alumni or the grants
issuers pay for their research.
The endowments or taxes now pay for about 2/3 of tuition.
It used to be 5/6.
Not all faculty members, even at major universities,
are still active mathematicians.
As long as they have the degree, they are a "mathematician" even if
they aren't active.
I have commented on degrees and other certificates
as mere pieces of paper.
If your peers have lower standards for issuing a piece of paper to
them than you think appropriate, take it up with them. If you can't
convince THEM, you certainly won't convince US.
This is Gresham's Law in effect. Besides which, Podunk
will not hire them without the piece of paper.
Are you claiming that some university committed fraud by granting him
a PhD? Or by granting him a professorate in Mathematics?
No. The process is far from perfect, and many
people essentially give up on research and scholarship
and settle down to teach as they have been doing for
decades. This is NOT good.
That is what "we the people" want them to do. I don't see that
changing.
"We the people" do not make the decisions for tenure
and promotion. The only cases I know of the Boards of
Trustees for a university overriding the committees are
political.
Nor do "we the people" make hiring decisions. The Boards
may tell the deans what areas to hire people in, and the
deans, and occasionally higher-ups, with faculty input,
make the decisions.
The exceptions are for such positions as athletic coaches.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up |
11 Jun 2007 01:19:43 PM |
|
|
Mat manipulatives are fun and it is benficial to know why something
works but when it comes to adding, subtracting, multiplying and
dividing; if you want any speed you have to memorize.
Drawing pictures and counting up circles is great but until 5+5 =10
faster than I can type it, the kids will be at a disadvantage on any
type of standardized test that is given because time is a factor in
all of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up |
11 Jun 2007 03:30:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1181585983.957538.104530@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
<defgonzalez8759@gmail.com> wrote:
Mat manipulatives are fun and it is benficial to know why something
works but when it comes to adding, subtracting, multiplying and
dividing; if you want any speed you have to memorize.
If you want a lot of speed, you may have to memorize.
If you want any speed, this is not necessary. There are
ways to get around memorization.
I do not have any real problems in doing mathematics in
various bases, and I have not memorized. I would not have
any major problems in doing long division or square roots
in any of the bases which have been used by mankind, and
the only ones for which I can state the tables offhand are
2 (trivial) and 10.
Drawing pictures and counting up circles is great but until 5+5 =10
faster than I can type it, the kids will be at a disadvantage on any
type of standardized test that is given because time is a factor in
all of them.
I have always been able to do tests quickly, which is one
reason I do not believe speed is important. It is what
someone knows and can do with it in novel situations which
is important, not how quickly one can blurt out an answer.
--
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: Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up |
18 Jun 2007 10:03:52 AM |
|
|
On Jun 10, 10:51 am, Dom <D...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2...
Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up
Sunday, June 10, 2007
By KATHLEEN CARROLL, STAFF WRITER
[snip]
I found the following additional information about Joseph Rosenstein
at:
http://vormath.info/WordPress1/?&paged=2
====================
June 10, 2007
Parents say new way to teach math doesn't add up
Filed under: In the Local News ? vormathi @ 2:47 pm
Controversy in Ridgewood reflects a national debate.
High-achieving parents, worried that non-traditional math lesson will
cause their children to fall behind, are demanding a return to the
basics.
"I know reformists like to call it drill and kill but I look at it as
drill and skill".
"One of the themes of the math wars is that some people argue all for
skills, and some argue all for understanding", said Joseph Rosenstein,
a math professor at Rutgers University who helped write New Jersey's
math instruction standards.
------------------------------------
Not mentioned in the Bergen Record article:
Joseph Rosenstein is co-principal investigator on a $1,754,307 NSF
continuing grant, Building a Learning Community in Science and
Mathematics through Educational Partnerships. In 2001, he was the
principal investigator in a $1,620,362 NSF award entitled, "Activating
Parents in Implementing New Jersey?s Mathematics, Science and
Technology Standards".
[See: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0337839
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=9705200 ]
Joseph Rosenstein played a major role in developing and promoting New
Jersey's state math standards. Our state standards that received a C,
two D's and a big fat F when graded by the educational think tank, the
Thomas B Fordham Foundation.
Rosenstein's involvement with education began with the observation,
back in the 80s, of about 20% of incoming students had to enroll in
remedial math courses. [2]
New Jersey?s Math standards are written to mimic the controversial
NCTM math standards. Since then, Rutgers went from a 20% to a "30%
remediation rate" [1].
In "Mathematics Standards, Division and Constructivism", Rosenstein
hedges on teaching long division; questioning should teachers spend
the time to ensure students have mastered the traditional method of
dividing 328 into 78,965, "a skill they are unlikely to use, since
they will certainly use a calculator" [2]. Yet he acknowledges that it
is a neat way of encapsulating alot of thinking.
"As such, it merits our attention and admiration. It is part of our
culture. Does that mean that it belongs in the book? Yes, but it will
not be treated the same way as it was a generation ago." [2]
He also speaks of the methods taught in Mathland. A reform math
program that is now extinct.
[1] Periodic Review Report to the Middle State Commission on Higher
Education. Table 16 on page 89 of the pdf file (page 75 of actual
paper) shows the increased remediation rate.
[ http://oirap.rutgers.edu/reports/MSAPRR.pdf ]
[2] Mathematics Standards, Division, and Constructivism by Joseph G.
Rosenstein.
[ http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/~joer/nytimes1.html ]
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
