I encourage you to watch the video below. While it is 15 minutes long, it is worth watching, as you'll see how the educational elites are teaching multiplication and division to school children.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
January 27th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Man, that's some terrible textbooks; not teaching kids proper math so that they have more time to look at glossy, full-color pictures that just drive the price up.
One small quibble, though: I'm not sure 5th grade teachers qualify as "educational elites".
Comment by Krauze — January 27, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Hi Krauze,
5th grade teachers don't come up with something like this. Bureaucrats and the "educational establishment" do.
Comment by MikeGene — January 27, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
If public education was driven by consumer choice (ie Vouchers), this kind of nonsense would only harm the children of parents taken in by such fads. In the real world, this kind of 'edumacation' wouldn't survive long.
Comment by todd — January 27, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Mike,
Okay, I read your statement too literally.
Todd,
Oh no, we can't have that. Some parents are going to want their kids taught creationism, and we all know the educational and financial havock wrecked by that. It's much better to have some centralized bureaucrats deciding everything. As a commenter on Pharyngula who said: "I don't know about anybody else, but I don't want the average Wal-mart shopper entrusted with educating their children."
Comment by Krauze — January 27, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Interesting how so many elites will blame Darwin-doubters for the continuing decline of our domestic students' interest in science. I think plenty of kids are interested in science and engineering, but when they get to college the math is so daunting to them that they turn away and leave these fields to foreign students who have had a proper math education.
Sadly, my two kids in public elementary school are in the Everyday Mathematics program. The teachers think it's nonsense as do parents, but they are mandated to teach it. This is a great video and I'm sending it to our PTA, parents and teachers. It's amazing how many parents are unaware of this stuff being taught to their kids. My kids used to go to a Catholic school where math is taught correctly. This is one more reason for us to get them back into a Christian school where they can be taught basic math and science skills. Private Christian schools are about the only place you'll find math taught right. Even secular private schools are using some of these nutty methods.
Public education has become a racket with our kids as fodder. The NEA, text book publishers and the education bureaucracy collude to create new faddish methods in education in order to make jobs for themselves and to sell more books and programs.
I'm ordering the Singapore Math series for work at home.
Comment by Stuart Harris — January 27, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Wow. I'm an education major (English, secondary), and having rather coincidentally just taken a test this morning to demonstrate basic skills in reading comprehension, writing, and math as a requirement for certification, that scares me. We were prohibited from using a calculator on the test, and I can't imagine failing a test to become a teacher because I couldn't do basic things like multiplication and long division.
This is a pretty sad development. And here I was surprised to see algebra much earlier in elementary school (third grade in one instance, I think) than when I encountered it (which was middle school/jr. high). Sort of makes me wish I'd chosen math instead of English (and in some ways, it makes me glad I don't have to clean up the mess that texts like this create).
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 27, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
No, we want to raise kids that can't do math so that they don't realize how much less expensive Wal-Mart is than other stores. That's why I shop there. Ops, but then I'm one of those voucher lovin' Creationist (Id) wackos who doesn't want to kill off mankind (see recent chatter on DI). I am clearly one of the evil ones.
Comment by bFast — January 27, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
The Pharyngula crowd would have its cake and eat it too. Public schools have great potential as indoctrination tools. The decline in test scores, that began decades ago, coincided with increasing efforts to use the educational system to teach social values. They range from historic revision concepts to moral relativism. There may be no causal link between the teaching of non-academic concepts and declining test scores but what interests me is the relative immunity the public school systems have enjoyed from declining educational results. They are less likely to be blamed than a comparatively small ID movement for example. But then again sophisticated elites, who have associated Wal-Mart with ill-intentioned or simplistic people, like black and white symbolism. When the likes of D. James Kennedy can be found among critics of public education it's time to rally round an institution that furthers orthodoxy and discourages innovative thinking.
Comment by Bradford — January 27, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I kind of liked the "Partial Products Method" since it makes it clear what is going on with the standard algorithm (namely, the distributive property of multiplication). The standard algorithm really is saying that 43×26=(40×20)+(40*6)+(20*3)+(3*6) and I think it is good for kids to know that. Plus, it is close enough to the standard algorithm that they can easily drop the column on the right when they've learned why it works that way.
Comment by macht — January 27, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Huh. Why should men listen to the advice of a woman about math? It's just not right. I say, if the majority of the creators of the "new" curricula were men, then she must be wrong.
Comment by Douglas — January 27, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
January 28th, 2007 at 12:16 am
First time posting here, but my daughter is in 5th grade and has had to deal with some of this nonsense. Even though she is in a Christian school, state standards force them to cover some of the math this way. It causes the kids all sorts of confusion.
Macht, I see your point, but I think you are wrong. The problem is that you teach the kids one way and then suddenly you teach them a much shorter method. +99% of the kids won't even recognize the principles involved. All the kids understand is that they had to learn some long method before learning a much shorter method.
Learning usually takes a practical to principle path. You learn how to practically do something and then later you start to learn the principles and detail behind it. A good example is teaching someone to play chess. You don't throw a ton of theory at them. Instead you start with the rules of the game and about 10 basic guidelines. Later as they build mastery, you start adding more complex ideas. It is the same situation here. We should be teaching the kids at this age how to achieve practical results (multiply, divide, fractions, etc.). They'll be much more able to handle more complex and detailed math concepts later. Plus, they'll have some confidence that math isn't that bad. And, it would have stopped some long evenings with helping my daughter figure out where to put zeros, etc.
Comment by Terrahawk — January 28, 2007 @ 12:16 am
January 28th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Thanks for the heads up on the excellent video. As poor as that curriculum is, though, it is not as bad as "anti-racist multicultural math."
Comment by obrienr — January 28, 2007 @ 12:43 am
January 28th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Here's a post on quacky math with some interesting quotes:
Comment by Krauze — January 28, 2007 @ 5:19 am
January 28th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
"The standards recommended that students get together with peers in cooperative learning groups to "construct" strategies for solving … "
This looks like psychology, not math. When did the shrinks take over the math department?
Comment by bFast — January 28, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
January 28th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Curious about your labeling of "educational elites."
If they are elite, their methods should probably be copied. Is that what you're urging?
If that's not what you're urging, then why are you using "elite" in a pejorative fashion?
What is "educational elite?"
Comment by edarrell — January 28, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
January 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I looked up the definition just to be sure:
elite: a group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status:
Why assume that elite conflates with a desired outcome? Even if educational elites are intellectually superior (a doubtful presumption) that is no guarantee that their ideas are more effective. Whether their methods should be copied is open to question. There can be rational bases upon which to differ with them.
Comment by Bradford — January 28, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
January 28th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Ed, being unable to address any of the points raised in the thread, instead chooses to pursue some red herring about terminology.
Comment by Krauze — January 28, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
January 28th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I'm a professional educator with a BA in Physics and a PhD in computer science. Several of my friends and relatives are also professional educators and/or educational policy experts.
As such, I am amazed that the community of weatherpeople, random bloggers and blog commenters has so much to teach the community of dedicated educators about how kids learn math. It's inspiring to know that the "jes' folks" out there are so consistently knowledgeable and wise about how and what to teach grade-school children about multiplication and long-division; much more so, surprisingly, than those who have made it their life's work, read the extensive history of the subject, run classroom studies, etc.
I can only hope that these brilliant souls will push for the same kind of inspired common-sense practices in bridge-building, aircraft design and surgery. Imagine how much work in these fields could be improved if we could just get away from the elitist pseudo-wisdom of the "experts".
In fact, the experts themselves understand just how much folks with minimal knowledge, experience, and understanding can contribute to a field. Let's expose their dirty little secret once and for all.
Comment by PO8 — January 28, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Hey, you pulled the herring out. I merely noted its color is red. If you didn't want to deal with the red herring, why didn't you throw it back?
Are they elites or not? What's your point?
Comment by edarrell — January 29, 2007 @ 1:11 am
January 29th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Terrahawk,
My daughter is also in 5th grade and is being taught the Everyday Mathematics series as seen in the video. Fortunately her teacher also explains the traditional long division algorithm, so in the area of division she's doing OK only because her individual teacher recognizes the course material is nonsense. I worry about the rest of her math, so I've started to test her for the Singapore Math level she can attain, and I'll buy the appropriate books this week for home study.
See: http://www.singaporemath.com for the tests and all their books.
My undergrad degree is in Mathematics (I also have an MS in Comp Sci) and it really angers me that my kids aren't getting what I got in elementary school. I also have a son in 3rd grade and will be doing home math with him.
My daughter asked me, "But Daddy, if I don't do the math the way they want me too, I'll get a bad grade!" I say, "Sweetie, what matters is that you know your mathematics and can do it well and efficiently, rather than what grade you get." I hope I can instill that idea in her through college, maybe even more so in subjects other than math.
Comment by Stuart Harris — January 29, 2007 @ 1:41 am
January 29th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Are they elites or not?
Every field includes people of elevated status; education being no exception.
What's your point?
The blog entry is an examination of teaching and learning. What is your point?
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2007 @ 6:59 am
January 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
PO8:
Perhaps you and other professional educators can explain why the ranking of our students in mathematics is so much lower than that of Korea (2nd place), when they spend half as much as we do on education.
Comment by obrienr — January 29, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Hi PO8,
"much more so, surprisingly, than those who have made it their life's work, read the extensive history of the subject, run classroom studies, etc."
I see. So what classroom studies have been performed on the math algorithms described in the video? What were the results?
Comment by Krauze — January 29, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
PO8, "I am amazed that the community of weatherpeople, random bloggers and blog commenters has so much to teach the community of dedicated educators about how kids learn math."
Cut the "we know better" bullschtick, and show us the data that demonstrate that this new math is better. I am far more compelled by scientifically gathered data than I am by Ph.Ds, and other fancy titles.
Comment by bFast — January 29, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
More on school choice, with some words against the "we'll be overrun by creationist schools!" threatiness.
Comment by Krauze — January 29, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
PO8,
And what background do you have which qualifies you to judge the effectiveness of teaching elementary mathematics to young students? I have always been under the impression that undergraduate degrees in physics, and graduate degrees in computer science, don't touch on those areas.
Comment by Douglas — January 29, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I've got some sympathy with the school voucher movement. I don't have any kids in the public school system msyelf, but I'm still supporting it with my taxes. I don't have a problem with that, because I benefit from it indirectly…I'm hoping to retire one day, and I'm counting on today's kids to keep things running. I try to keep up with the school board elections to insure that things aren't going terribly wrong.
But I've got no control over private schools. There are a lot of them that are good, but others are just teaching bigoted, anti-scientific, homophobic bilge and the kids wind up stupider than they were when they came in. And I'm powerless to do anything about it.
That's why I like the idea of vouchers. If my tax dollars are supporting vouchers, then I can vote on how they'll be spent. If a school that teaches that one religion is somehow "better" than another, or that homosexuals are "evil", or that the country's being destroyed by the "Jewish media elite", then they're on the blacklist. If a school tries to sneak Biblical Literalism into Biology class, then they're on the blacklist, too. A couple of the worst offenders will just do without the vouchers…but I think most of those schools won't be able to resist the siren song of free government money.
The big problem I see is the one of unmotivated parents. In public schools, you've got a mix…some kids have parents that care about their education, and others don't. If the school has a problem, the motivated parents are the ones that fight to fix it. And the children of unmotivated parents get some of the benefits of that.
But what happens if the "good" parents use vouchers for quality schools, and the "bad" parents use vouchers for schools that give under-the-table kickbacks? Even if a kid was unlucky in his choice of parents, I'd like to see him get at least a chance at a good education. I can't support voucher programs until I get an answer to that objection.
Oh, as to the math video. I don't have time to watch it, but I gather that people think it's not a good way to teach math. If that's true, then I'm counting on the parents to make some noise during the next school board election.
Comment by chaosengineer — January 29, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
whoa…. chip on your shoulder?
Comment by Doug — January 29, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Hi Chaosengineer,
"I've got some sympathy with the school voucher movement."
Vouchers aren't the only road to school choice. Another possibility is tax credits, which I'm rooting for.
"If my tax dollars are supporting vouchers, then I can vote on how they'll be spent."
Funny, that's the reason I'm opposed to vouchers. It's a well known fact that government money comes with strings attached. The article on tax credits describes what happened to the Netherlands when they instituted voichers:
Sure, putting bureaucrats in charge of deciding everyone's curriculum will protect some children from their parent's bad decisions. But only at the cost of making all children suspectible to the bureaucrats' bad decisions. Anti-racist multicultural math, anyone?
And we're still going to get the same school fights, as special interest groups try to make sure that they get to control the purse strings.
"If the school has a problem, the motivated parents are the ones that fight to fix it."
Of course, to some motivated parents, "too much teaching of evolution" is the problem that they fight to fix.
"But what happens if the "good" parents use vouchers for quality schools, and the "bad" parents use vouchers for schools that give under-the-table kickbacks?"
The same thing that happens when "bad" parents give their kids junk food and let them slump in front of the TV all day: The kids get a suboptimal upbringing. But most people would recoil at the thought of government intrusion in those areas, believing that, for good or for bad, most decisions should be left in the hands of parents.
"Even if a kid was unlucky in his choice of parents, I'd like to see him get at least a chance at a good education."
I think everybody has that wish. But the question shouldn't be what we would like to have, but if getting it is worth the price. How much do we trust a group of bureaucrats to make the decisions for how everybody is going to be educated?
Comment by Krauze — January 29, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
But what happens if the "good" parents use vouchers for quality schools, and the "bad" parents use vouchers for schools that give under-the-table kickbacks? Even if a kid was unlucky in his choice of parents, I'd like to see him get at least a chance at a good education. I can't support voucher programs until I get an answer to that objection.
The logic behind this objection is applicable to any form of government spending or tax deduction. Show me it cannot be abused and I'll… The objection is so broad it cannot be taken seriously.
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
If a school that teaches that one religion is somehow "better" than another,
By making a distinction between your group and others you are implicitly declaring your belief that yours is preferable but this applies to any form of organization; not simply religions. Preferable generally equates to better in the mind of the holder of that viewpoint.
or that homosexuals are "evil", or that the country's being destroyed by the "Jewish media elite", then they're on the blacklist.
Given that the overwhelming numbers of people in western societies are of a Judeo-Christian background this concern is silly. You could just as easily argue that heterosexuals who engage in adultery are considered evil. None of the above is true because it is not the one who commits the act that is considered evil but the act itself. If you contend otherwise you put yourself in the same boat as those you criticize. If you hold to a value system (and everyone has one) then presumably you consider those who violate precepts, you consider right, to be evil.
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
that the country's being destroyed by the "Jewish media elite", then they're on the blacklist.
What school teaches this?
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Today, the Dutch government defines teacher accreditation requirements, fixes salary scales, curtails the firing of teachers, sets the core curriculum, says how much will be spent, makes it illegal to charge tuition over the voucher amount, and prohibits profit-making in voucher schools. In other words, Dutch "independent" voucher schools have lost their independence.
Excellent point. The power of the purse confers regulatory authority. When viewpoints can be regulated, affected organizations can be neutered.
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
January 29th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Krauze:
I nominate this for quote of the month!
Comment by MikeGene — January 29, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
January 30th, 2007 at 1:46 am
I remember those books. I was fortunate enough to get up to 10th grade before they were brought in– the "math teacher" love them, since it meant he didn't have to do anything but chat with the jocks. (classic "football hero teaching in his home town" setup– not much teaching at all)
Those things are not very good at teaching unless you already know what you're supposed to learn. I thought the *requirement* of a $150 calculator for anything above jr high math was rather stupid, too.
Honestly, go look for info on the Wazle. (Washington State education test– now required to graduate.)
It's partially thanks to these type of books that I'm determined to home-school my kids.
Comment by Foxfier — January 30, 2007 @ 1:46 am
January 30th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
How dare you internet people ask questions of PO8. Didn't you read that he/she is "a professional educator with a BA in Physics and a PhD in computer science." That means you are supposed to shut up, listen, and accept.
Comment by MikeGene — January 30, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
January 30th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Yes mastah!
Comment by bFast — January 30, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
January 30th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Mike Gene,
I am humbled and appalled by my behavior. I genuflect in PO8's general direction, several times; and I berate myself in private, reminding myself that I am not worthy to be in PO8's Internet presence. Let me know when I have suffered enough.
Comment by Douglas — January 30, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
February 5th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
My point, Bradford, is that this math program is promulgated by mostly the same "elites" who promulgate intelligent design — which is to say it's no elite at all.
Is it wrong? I believe so. Do we get anywhere trying to lay it off to the left? No.
So why not dwell on whether it works or not, how such determinations are made, and how to improve math education?
I see someone brought up the Singapore program. Of course, that's a program that comes from a planned program (socialism, in other words), in a nation where there is a national curriculum (socialism) with a national test (socialism), and where kids are tracked from pre-high school, so that the "elite" get selected for the math program.
If it's elites that bother you, you should take after Singapore.
It's cheap shots that bother me, especially when they tend to confuse the issue rather than illuminate, as the lead post in this thread did.
Comment by edarrell — February 5, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
February 6th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Edarrell:
How did you conclude that those who promulgate ID also promulgate the math program in question? Are you conflating elite with expertise?
Comment by Bradford — February 6, 2007 @ 9:18 am