GEORGIA adopts new Math approach

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Ok, this is scary because Georgia ranks just above Miss. for education and they have jumped on the Japanese approach to math education.....doing away with the labels and using a "whole lang" approach to mathematics education starting next year in H.S. for the class of 2012. My son will miss it fortunately but I am wondering have any of you parents had this approach in your educational systems? Basically, no longer will they take algebra, geometry, algebra II, pre-cal, calculus, trig or whatever...they will take Math I, Math II, Math III and Math IV. and each year will be filled with all areas.</p>

<p>My D's survived whole language debacle of the 90's to have it abandoned. I see this happening again with this new wave method.</p>

<p>Anyone want to weigh in on this?</p>

2

<p>I think it depends on the textbooks and class schedules.</p>

<p>I think the textbooks should not mix the subjects together. They should have separate algebra and geometry textbooks. And the textbooks should be thin.
Both algebra and geometry should be taught at the same time beginning with 6 or 7th grade.</p>

3

<p>Ironically, NY had been doing integrated math for years and is now going back to the old Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2. I see a couple of issues. One is that Americans move - a lot. It’s a real hardship for a kid who has to switch to a drastically different system. I also think my kids got shortchanged on geometry proofs. Since that was my favorite part of math naturally that makes me sad!</p>

<p>If they could truly teach math like the Japanese you’d have nothing to worry about. They regularly score very, very well on the TIMMS. (International math exam.) But I believe that’s more an issue of HOW they teach, not the order in which things appear in the text books.</p>

4

<p>Why do you call this the “Japanese” approach? In our school district, there is an “integrated math” approach that sounds like what you are describing, but I don’t think it is how they do things in Japan. Fortunately, our district has been forced by parents to maintain a traditional sequence as well, so those parents who don’t want IM can choose to keep their kids out, starting with algebra 1.</p>

<p>I don’t like the IM in the least. One of our school board members has assembled data that indicates the IM kids in our district do worse on the state math exams, and worse on the ACT. The calculus teachers I know think the kids who have come through IM are not prepared for calculus.</p>

<p>A big problem has arisen for students who move to other districts. Because the IM approach does not go through a whole algebra or geometry sequence at the same “grade” level as most schools, kids who move to a traditional district end up as much as two years behind their fellow students. (Most of the schools in our state do not use the IM approach.)</p>

<p>Many of the complaints of the IM approach center on the heavy group work approach, the dismissal of teaching standard algorithms, the amount of time spent reinventing the wheel, and ultimately–for this district–the need to hire a lot of “math coaches” to help both teachers and students. It has become an expensive method here.</p>

<p>So sorry to hear this. Is this all of Georgia?</p>

5

<p>I think the transient issue in public schools is a good point. I also know other states like Oregon? who tried this and abandoned it. It sounds good but many factors make me question it…
if the entire country did it the same way…maybe that is the answer but that will never happen.</p>

<p>All of georgia.
Not private schools though.
Call it Japanese approach because that is how they are “marketing” it.</p>

6

<p>If it really is a Japanese approach, that would be a very good idea. But where is there a Web link with a detailed description of how it is proposed that Georgia math education will change? </p>

<p>See </p>

<p>[Hung-Hsi</a> Wu’s Home Page](<a href=“http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/]Hung-Hsi”>Hung-Hsi Wu's Home Page) </p>

<p>for well informed advice on math education, </p>

<p>and </p>

<p>[Amazon.com:</a> Learning Gap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education: Harold Stevenson: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Gap-Schools-Japanese-Education/dp/0671880764/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Gap-Schools-Japanese-Education/dp/0671880764/) </p>

<p>and </p>

<p>[Amazon.com:</a> The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom: James W. Stigler,James Hiebert: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Gap-Improving-Education-Classroom/dp/0684852748/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Gap-Improving-Education-Classroom/dp/0684852748/) </p>

<p>for a detailed, accurate explanation of the best practices of Japanese schools.</p>

7

<p>Thanks for the links.
I can see where it will/could work if all across the country we had uniformity in math education. I can see how it will fail without.</p>

<p>I will find a georgia description but basically it is a subject based approach now with separate (but there is integration a little by necessity) courses taught yearly-- algebra (usually 8th grade), geometry, algebra II, pre cal, calculus, trig…</p>

8

<p>My daughter’s school has the IMP (Interactive Math Program) as an option.
She/we chose it because it seemed like a more engaging approach than the traditional one offered.
She is a graduating senior and regrets having taken IMP.
She felt there were things she was never taught for the SAT and she was also at a disadvantage in her AP Calculus class this year. I know other kids/parents feel similarly.
I like the critical thinking of IMP but it definitely misses things that kids need for the SAT. The math chair even said so.
I would ask the district to seriously look at the data, esp. re the SAT scores.</p>

9

<p>anotherNY parent here, NY state has dumped the integrated math approach. The kids that were accelerated took a regents in 8th grade(equivalent to the old algebra) the regular tracked kids took it over a 1 1/2 grade year. the results were HORRENDOUS. They have a serious gap in basic algebra. Too many months to cover a one year topic. I was speaking with the Math dept. chair at our school he said it was THE WORST 7 year experiment NY ever did on this group of kids. So it wasn’t even slowly transitioned, dumped altogether. Private math tutors are making a fortune around here undoing the damage that program did. Agree with the above LOOK at states that use the program and see how the SAT scores look, THAT will tell you the serious gaps in this method. AP calc teacher said after the AP they are going to just review basic algebra for the AB/BC kids cause there are such big basic gaps in algebra.</p>

10

<p>An issue with any change of curriculum is whether it aligns with tests. The curriculum may be terrific, as is the pedagogy. But if the exam tests something different, the students will not score as high as they should. If students took the exams at the very end of the new curriculum, they might or might not score as well as those following a more traditional one, in line with the exams; but it they take those exams midway, they will not.
One problem with IMP (common to TERC and Everydaymath) may be the spiraling issue. It is predicated on the idea that students need repeated exposure to some concepts and that if they do not get it first time they will next time. The problem is that students who do not get something the first time have to start all over again next time.
For what it’s worth, French students take algebra and geometry throughout high school. I do not believe they fare worse than American students on TIMSS. But the assumption is that they are supposed to master a particular math concept before moving on to the next, whether in algebra or geometry. The idea of dropping something and taking it up again later is not part of the curriculum.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>Meh. I had something similar to this in middle/high school (Integrated Math I, II, III, Pre-Calc, Calc), and I don’t think it hurt me. I had great textbooks, and, particularly for Integrated III, a great teacher.</p>

<p>However, the year after I finished the Integrated sequence, they got new textbooks, that were <em>terrible</em>. My old Integrated III teacher refused to use them.</p>

<p>So it depends.</p>

12

<p>At least, it seems that Georgia is TRYING to improve its system of education. A few years ago, they negotiatated with The College Board to offer free SAT help to every student via an access to the SAT online tool. While I do not know the extent of the proposed changes, it’d appear that most everything that is offered abroad should be a stop in the right direction.</p>

<p>In general terms, few people know --or care-- about the extent of our failure at teaching math in K-12. Utopians believe that our best students do better than the best students abroad (not true) and that our worst performers still do better (not true.) Unfortunately, while the US is a bit better than average in elementary school, the scores start slipping in middle school, and the performance for the 15-17 years is simply horrendous as we barely edge third-world countries in international assessments. The same apoligists who try to find “excuses” for our failures typically try to pretend the tests are rigged or that the samples do not represent the entire student body. This is again not true. </p>

<p>The reality is that examples of better instruction abound abroad. The good performance of Asian countries are well known, but it’s hardly unique. Even better performances on tests such as PISA are routinely logged by the Flemish in Belgium or the Netherlands --not France, if that matters. Of course, students in the flat land countries do benefit from a combination of a well designed Realistic Math program (see Freudenthal) and the strength of a religious instructional system that is mostly offered by private catholic schools. Indeed, one another example of the horror of well designed school choice plans in countries where school freedom is a constitutional right of all citizens! /sarcasm </p>

<p>This said, not all reforms are better. In a small country such as Belgium, the French speaking system jumped on a leaky boat called Modern Math developed by a group a French and Belgian mathematicians (including a ficititious character.) Two generations later, the educators are still trying to undo the overall damage and reduce the gap with the rest of the country. </p>

<p>Again, the United States should be able to find programs worth emulating. However, the biggest challenge will remain finding the teachers who not only would be qualified to teach the material or merely understanding it. Few of the international books come with the crutches known as Teachers’ Edition. It’s a lot harder to grade papers and teach without someone spotting you the answers! </p>

<p>On the issue raised by the OP, here’s one small description of the differences between US and Japanese standards:</p>

<p>

</p>

13

<p>anther NY mom here – first they had sequential 1, 2 & 3 - no experience with those. then the morons went to Math A and Math B - somehow thinking that 3 semesters per course made sense – which meant expecting kids to have a summer gap in the midsts of learning the coursework. And then SURPRISE - regents exam results were awful.</p>

<p>When my oldest child was in Math A and tried to tell me what they were doing in class from week to week – it made me feel as if someone had taken the hs math curriculum, thrown it up in the air, and randomly picked it up to create Math A. nothing seemed to follow in a logical progression.</p>

<p>I don’t know if this was the case - but I always thought that Math A and Math B was just a way to allow them to say that kids only needed Math A for a Regents diploma and ensure that they had a smattering of all of the math subjects. but instead of allowing for some minimum level of competency across all the math subjects, i think it just undermined the ability of students (especially those math challenged who presumably would benefit from only needing one math regents) to achieve any competency.</p>

<p>So when after a high level state review panel came up with the radical conclusion that they should start teaching the subjects in separate years (ie, the way I learned them over 30 years ago!) all I could do was (1) laugh at how ridiculous it was that it took them so long to come to the conclusion that I had come to within a month of my child starting Math A and (2) cry that the change came too late for my youngest child.</p>

14

<p>Am I missing something here???</p>

<p>From what I’m reading, Xiggi would indicate that the “Japanese” method is more akin to the Harkness method employed at some of the better prep schools and has nothing to do with the “Integrated” math that the state of Georgia (previously employed with disasterous results in NY).</p>

<p>Sounds like the state board of education could use some remedial work.</p>

15

<p>Please be aware that I do NOT know the details of the “the Japanese approach to math education” described by the OP. I have not looked at supporting data from Georgia that might explain the proposed changes. </p>

<p>The article I quoted is a generic article and not one that responded to the changes in Georgia.</p>

16

<p>What Xiggi describes is pedagogy (how to teach concepts and skills) not curriculum content (whether or not to teach algebra and geometry simultaneously, concurrently or sequentially). SAT tests curriculum, not pedagogy. It the curriculum is not aligned with the SAT (or some other test), a good teacher with good textbooks may not overcome the problem.</p>

<p>I agree with Xiggi that a large proportion of US math teachers are terrible. See Liping Ma , *Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics<a href=“I%20sound%20like%20a%20broken%20record%20on%20this%20topic”>/i</a>.</p>

17

<p>Here’s the link to the book marite recommends, which I also recommend: </p>

<p>[Amazon.com:</a> Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers’ Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States (Studies in Mathematical Thinking and Learning.): Liping Ma: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary-Mathematics-Understanding/dp/0805829091/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary-Mathematics-Understanding/dp/0805829091/)</p>

18

<p>Regarding the changes:</p>

<p>[Georgia</a> Standards - Mathematics Standards](<a href=“Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE) - Official GaDOE Site”>Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE) - Official GaDOE Site)</p>

<p><a href=“Home – Georgia Department of Education”>Home – Georgia Department of Education;

19

<p>Marite, I agree with you on the issues of pedagogy versus curriculum contents. I am certain that volumes have been written about the differences. </p>

<p>As far as the SAT, I would be extremely leery in using *that *test as an important component in the K-12 curriculum. The performance on standardized tests should be influenced by the knowledge gained through education. The tests serve as measurement tools in the same manner a nurse takes one’s blood pressure or temperature. It can do little to nothing in addressing the symptoms of an ailing patient. </p>

<p>One pitfall is the entire “teaching to the test” syndrome. The oft-repeated excuse is that time devoted to ensuring children do well on a test is … wasted time. The reality is that our basic instruction should provide the tools to students to pass … all kinds of tests that measure a combination of knowledge and reasoning. Fwiw, it’s that pesky reasoning that seems to remain so elusive. My theory is that the instruction that serves to develop logic and reasoning has been placed on the backburner, and well behind the sterile memorization of abstract and arcane facts.</p>

20

<p>goaliedad’s comment (post 14) has hit upon an essential point, as least as far as I can determine in our local situation. </p>

<p>Those who have pushed Integrated Math at secondary schools (TERC at elementary, and Connected Math at middle) claim that the method mimics that used in other countries with better records at teaching math. The ‘pushers’ in this case, and probably everywhere, are university math-education professors.</p>

<p>Oddly enough, it has been impossible, locally, to locate a single highly educated person from any of those model countries who agrees that the supposedly similar system bears much resemblance to what they used when they were in school. Since this is a college town, we have many foreign-born/educated math, statistics, physics, engineering and economics professors from Asian and European countries who have children in our schools. Without exception, those families have not allowed their own children to be enrolled in the Integrated Math sequence at secondary level and are among the loudest voices currently trying to get rid of Everyday Math and Connected Math in our elementary and middle schools. </p>

<p>As they have explained it to me, it is true that each academic year in high school included some instruction in geometry as well as algebra, and some of the basic concepts of calculus were introduced during the earlier years as well, but the topics were nonetheless taught as separate topics, they used textbooks, standard algorithms were taught, and while they did not make exclusive use of the “sage on the stage” pedagogy, teachers were nonetheless considered the ultimate source of instruction. </p>

<p>At the risk of opening up a can of worms, I’ll mention that when IM was introduced here, it was originally intended as a remedial approach for those students who came out of elementary school behind the curve in math skills. The composition of the student body in the ‘remedial’ track became a political hot potato, so the administration tried to make everyone take it, in order to eliminate the appearance of tracking by race and socio-economic status. When a hue and cry erupted, they established an ‘honors’ version of IM (meaning a student starts one year earlier in order to finish IM-4 in time to take a year of calculus), and that mollified enough parents that the IM system has muddled on, side by side with the traditional track.</p>

<p>We also have a nasty little local war going on in the media and on local education blogs (and it became part of a recent Board of Education race) about who is more qualified to comment on the type of math skills needed by high school graduates: math education professors, or professors of math, statistics, physics, engineering and economics, etc. who find it very handy if their students understand how to use simple algebraic formulas.</p>