There Is No New Math

Alternate Title: There Is Nothing New Under the Sun

The scan above is from book 1 of Mental Arithmetic by D.E. Wiedman, a classic from right here in Washington State. It was published by Union Printing of Bellingham in 1928 and used extensively in schools on the west side of the state; my particular copy is a leftover from the Arlington School District. The piece I'd point out is the first grade math standard: "45 fundamental combinations, no sums greater than 10."

Now consider the new math standards for Washington State, developed over the course of 15 years at an investment of tens of millions of dollars. After all the sturm un drang and teeth-gnashing and study and analysis, what did we come up with for first grade?

Quickly recall addition facts and related
subtraction facts for sums equal to 10.

Truly, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Back to basics, indeed.

Read more here, if any.

Workbooks That Don’t Work

We’re making a commitment to look at every aspect of our spending, and one area that is getting a close look is student workbooks, because there’s a ton of them and they’re all expensive. In my first grade room we have two different books for reading and one for math; they cost about $40 each per child. That’s about $10,000 a year, then just for workbooks for my one grade level.

Looking at that, we decided that next year we would eschew the reading workbooks in favor of a cheaper phonics workbook; we didn’t feel like we could do without math. Even in reading it will be difficult because of how the workbook paces the curriculum, and so we’re going to have to make a pretty strong commitment to bringing in other ways to teach specific reading strategies, high frequency words, and spelling.

If you’re doing a curriculum adoption make sure that you nail down what the year-to-year costs will be to keep it going. We got caught with our pants down.

Read more here, if any.

Oh, You Silly....!

The News Tribune is a great punching bag, because they almost never get it right. The latest example of that is this editorial from the March 7th edition talking about the general low state of math education in Washington. Consider:

Washington’s community colleges have long complained about the large numbers of incoming students who need remedial math instruction. But when University of Washington professors join the chorus, you know our math problem has reached epidemic proportions.

Yes, because unless the U-Dub says it, it must not be true. Never mind that math has been an integral part of the WASL since 1993, or that "Math Wars" has become part of the cultural vernacular, or the many reports that have chided K-12 for not sending colleges math-prepared students; since Montlake has spoken, we may now attend to the matter.

(I may have lived in Cougar country for too long)

Later on:

Face it: Differential pay is the future. Washington needs skilled teachers if its students are to get the math and science education they need to compete in the real world. Simply ramping up teacher recruiting won’t be enough.

And this is why I support the budget line item in question, because it raises an interesting issue: exactly how much money would it take to get our best and brightest to commit to teaching in the public schools? If software engineer can net you six figures easily for work that you can do on your own time in your own home, then shouldn't teaching with its myriad responsibilites be paid at an even higher rate?

And what of the private schools? I've long wondered if they have the same problems getting math teachers. Another interesting case would be a place like KIPP or Green Dot, too--do they struggle to get math and science certified people, or does the attractiveness of their program put them in a better position?

Read more here, if any.

My Interview With a Brain Eating Zombie Who Also Happens to Enjoy Education Policy Discussions

Me: “Hello, gentle readers, and welcome to the first ever actual interview on I Thought a Think. Today’s special guest, here to talk with us about what’s going to happen in the coming legislative session, is a Brain Eating Zombie Who Also Happens to Enjoy Education Policy Discussions. And how are you today, sir?”

Zombie: “BRAAAAAAAAAAAAINSSSSSSSSSS!”

“I’ve got to say, friend, that this won’t be much of an interview if that’s all you have for me.”

“Oh dear, I do apologize. It’s so easy to slip into zombie vernacular, what with the undead existence eating brains and all.”

“Quite all right. So tell me, what’s new in brain eating today?”

“Well, Ryan, the hot buzz in the zombie education policy wonk circles right now is the rise in academic achievement among new teachers. According to the ETS, GPAs are up, Praxis scores are up, and the overall pool is much, much more accomplished academically than what we were seeing ten years ago!”

“That’s great news indeed!”

“You’re telling me! I was snacking on some new elementary math majors the other day, and I haven’t had this sort of vintage in a long, long time. (kissing sound) Mwah, that’s some good brain eating!”

“Math majors? Hold on there, my undead friend—we need more math teachers!”

“Elementary math majors. They’re a dime a dozen.”

“I stand corrected. Do math teachers tend to have juicier, tastier brains?”

“It depends on the part of the world, actually. As Education Week recently reported, our middle school math teachers are far less intellectually prepared for the rigors of teaching than math teachers in other countries. Right now, I wouldn’t eat a middle school teacher’s brain no matter how far I had shambled that day!”

“Ha ha, you and your zombie humour! Tell me, does being one of the undead make it harder to dabble in education policy?”

“Oh, not at all. Web 2.0 was the best thing that ever could have happened to me. I’ve got a guest appearance lined up on the Education Gadfly podcast, I’m doing some webinars for the ASCD, and my new book, “Teach Like Your Hair’s On Fire BAD! FIRE BURN!” should be available soon. I also did some consulting work for the charter school ballot measure in Utah!”

“Really? How’d that go?”

“Not so hot. When I told Patrick Byrne that the voters were brainless, he took me to mean that they were stupid, which he why he made that unfortunate quote to the press about Utahns failing an IQ test. I was being literal, though—they were brainless, because I had eaten several of their brains. I do that. It’s kind of my thing.”

“Well, that’s all the time we have for today. Any final thoughts for the readers out there?”

“Just remember kids—stay in school, so that when a zombie eats your brain, it tastes good.”

Editor’s Note: I escaped having my brain eaten only because my guest knew that I had voted for Nader twice. Upon hearing that, he lost his appetite.

Read more here, if any.

NCTM News Bulletin, July-August Edition

The newest volume of the News Bulletin from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has begun, and it has a snazzy new look that’s shaken off some of the stodginess of the old newsletter. Good work by their graphics department. Some highlights:

*My man-crush on Skip Fennell continues on unabated as he turns in another excellent column, this time on the inherent challenges of the No Child Left Behind act.

*You can apply to get a grant to cover your travel costs to the International Congress on Mathematical Education conference in Monterrey, Mexico next July. That’d be a heck of a way to spend part of your summer vacation.

*Their journal of secondary math, The Mathematics Teacher, is looking for thoughts from teachers on how they reach their ESL/ELL students in the math classroom. Submission details here; general NCTM publishing guidelines can be found here. If you get published because of something you read off of I Thought a Think, please give me second author credit.

(just kidding)

*My recent post on the research/practice gap (which was profoundly expanded upon by The Science Goddess—thanks, Goddess!) seems to have been on the mind of the NCTM as well; their series of Research Briefs is designed to help bridge the divide by, “strengthening connections between practice and research.” It’s a good start to what could be a very worthwhile project.

*This issue marks the beginning of a series on intervention in mathematics; I’m quite curious to see where it goes. The material on intervention for reading difficulties is voluminous, but not so much for the mathematics. This could be a good place to keep an eye on if you’re a math specialist or math coach here in Washington, because golly knows we could use the help.

Hope you're enjoying your summer!

Read more here, if any.

A Healthy Debate About Math Coaches

We’re in the middle of our collaborative budgeting process right now, and it’s a little tense. I get to sit in on it as one of the union reps. The money situation is not good—our cash reserves have been going down, the Feds are being stingy with the impact aide, etc.—and we’re in a mode of having to look at possible cuts. There can also be additions to the programs we offer, but those will have to be offset by cuts on the other side.

One of the additions suggested was to pilot getting a math coach to work with teachers in the elementary schools. It was brought up by one of the principals and had the backing of the superintendent, but when we’re in a cutting mode I couldn’t see adding it this year. My suggestion was to add the money to our extended learning budget instead, which would let us offer more programs before and after school to help those kids who need it, but that was shot down for a couple of different reasons:

1. We can’t count on the kids who need intervention to come to the programs outside of the normal school day.
   
2. We haven’t exactly done the greatest job of designing and implementing effective intervention programs.

Still, as the union guy, extended learning money is money that goes right to my members, so that’s what I’d prefer.

We went round and round on coaching for a good while. The bottom line is, our math scores are not good. Could professional development get us where we need to be? Not really an option, we’ve already set the in-service calendar for next year. Besides, one-shot classes don’t get us anywhere. What about book studies? Well, they’re always voluntary, and making that transition from page to practice doesn’t always happen. Maybe we should look at something else next year? But what about the problem we have right now, for the coming year?

It occurred to me, though, that perhaps the membership would like having a math coach, so I emailed all the certified people in my building to get their thoughts. It was nearly unanimous: “If we’re going to add staff it should be to lower class size or offer enrichment, not to tell us what to do.” “TOSA is not teacher on special assignment, it’s teacher off sitting around.” “What’s a coach going to tell me about teaching math that I don’t already know?”

What this shows me is that my building, at least, is not ready for instructional coaches. Maybe they never will be ready, maybe it’s something that will be thrust upon us later, but now is not the time. It would be divisive, and said coach would be behind handicapped before they even took the job. Right now all of us in the classroom are working like mad to get the new math curriculum aligned; having someone come in and tell us what to do when we haven’t even established the order to do it in wouldn’t work.

In a similar vein, Skip Fennell’s column in this month’s NCTM News Bulletin is titled For Principals Only, and it talks about the difference an administrator can make when it comes to the professional development of their staff. I’ll have to pass it along to my principal; you should be able to find it soon on the NCTM's website.

I’ll let you know what happens.

Read more here, if any.