Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Calling a Truce

Spokane’s new superintendent calls for an end to the ‘math wars.’ But can she keep the peace?

Daniel Walters
Second-grade math teacher Susan Surby says the district’s non-traditional method of teaching math works. [Photo: Young Kwak]
Second-grade math teacher Susan Surby says the district’s non-traditional method of teaching math works. [Photo: Young Kwak]
Second-grade math teacher Susan Surby says the district’s non-traditional method of teaching math works. [Photo: Young Kwak]

For people attending a community forum at Shadle Park Library in February of last year, math wasn’t boring. In fact, for some, it was downright infuriating.

Called by activists upset over the way Spokane was teaching math, the meeting devolved into accusations, raised voices and sarcasm.

Nearly every school subject is accompanied by a how-to-teach argument. Reading raises the debate over phonics, biology has evolution, history has politics. But, in Spokane, the fight has been largely about math.

Nationally, they’ve been dubbed the “math wars.” Should teachers focus on critical thinking and student exploration? Or, instead, go back to the blackboard with classic formulas and heaps of calculator-free homework?

Shelley Redinger, first-year superintendent of Spokane Public Schools, thinks it’s time to lay down arms. “We’ve got to quit fighting the math wars in Spokane,” she says.

And as the district prepares to choose a new elementary math school curriculum, she might have a chance to stop them.


A few days before the start of school, veteran second-grade teacher Susan Surby slides red and white beads across the “rekenrek,” a stripped-down abacus. She uses this to teach her second-graders to think in terms of counting by fives and 10s. It’s one of many ways elementary math has changed in the past 20 years; Surby tries to teach her kids how to think, instead of what to think.

She opens up the colorful Investigations textbook, clearly part of the “reform” side of the math wars. Spokane has used this curriculum to teach math since 1998.

Reformers believe that memorization of formulae, tables and processes are less important than children understanding how math works. It’s about exploration. Students may be asked to figure out their own ways of solving entirely new types of problems. They may teach math to each other. They might be taught multiple methods to solve the same sort of problem.

“Last year we had six different strategies to add two-digit numbers,” Surby says.

And none of those six strategies included the traditional vertical method, the sort where you’d “carry the one.” In fact, when she sees her students bring in homework completed that way, she calls their parents and asks them not to teach their children to use the traditional method yet.

“The kids will come up with all different strategies that make sense to them,” she says. “It doesn’t always make sense to parents.” But as long as it works for students, she says, it can be a good place to start.

Eventually, by the third grade, the children are taught the traditional method, she says. It’s required for the recently created standardized MSP state test. But by then, ideally, they understand exactly why they’re carrying the one.

Yet, in Spokane, some of the most vocal parental activists have been horrified.

“I know parents who can’t help their elementary-age children with math homework because it doesn’t make sense to parents or students,” Spokane parent and school volunteer Breann Treffry writes in a list of complaints reprinted on education blogs. “I know volunteer tutors who’ve been refused because they teach traditional math methods rather than ‘fuzzy’ math.”

Fighting back against the reformers are the traditionalists. They want math to be taught with direct classroom-instruction, the most effective methods for problem-solving and lots and lots of calculator-free practice. In 2010, traditionalists filed a lawsuit against the Seattle school district for its new “Discovering Math” curriculum. The school district lost.

And Spokane’s current elementary school curriculum hasn’t always scored well.

When the Washington State Board of Education hired a firm to review math curricula in 2008, it found serious problems. While the firm praised the explanation of concepts found in Investigations, the study also said a “typical student would not be well prepared for the next level of Washington mathematics using only this program.”

Ultimately, the curriculum was not recommended.

More than a decade ago, Redinger was in charge of the curriculum for the Richland School District. She says she helped the district choose Investigations; but, today, the school officials have switched to enVision — a curriculum balanced between reform and traditional math.

Redinger says she favors that balanced approach. She’s been an administrator in several states in the past 14 years, and says most of them have moved past the “math wars” while Spokane has continued to fight the battle.

“The kids lose when adults are not in agreement,” Redinger says. “We need new materials at the elementary level.”

Fortunately, it’s an ideal time to switch. The textbooks are not only at the end of their traditional seven-year replacement cycle, but with Washington state adopting tougher, nationwide “common core” standards, textbooks in all sorts of subjects — including math — will need to be replaced.

High school classes have already switched to a middle ground: they pepper a traditional math curriculum, Holt Mathematics, with strategies beloved by reformers. While some of the district’s critics have still complained about the compromise, Redinger says she sees a lot more acceptance of the math curriculum at the high schools. She hopes a balance at the elementary level will take away some of the debate.

Redinger promises to be very involved in the search. But that doesn’t mean she already has a curriculum picked out. Part of ending the math wars, she says, is making sure the community — activists, administrators and parents — are involved in the decision. “I think we need to avoid making our minds up on something before having discussion,” Redinger says.

But even if the new curriculum results in a détente, other battles loom.

“Why is Spokane Public Schools preparing to spend several million taxpayer dollars on untested, unproven, and largely unseen curricula based on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?” reads the post of one local education blogger. 

Also in News

Calling for Help

A frantic 911 call lands Christopher Parker in a jail cell instead of a hospital, and leads to his death

Jacob Jones |
Wednesday, May 22,2013

Let 'Em Vote

Spokane City Council won’t sue to keep initiatives off of the fall ballot; plus, a new UW-WSU rivalry

Heidi Groover, Deanna Pan, Daniel Walters |
Wednesday, May 22,2013

Reefer Rules

Washington state takes a first pass at marijuana market regulations

Heidi Groover, Lisa Waananen |
Wednesday, May 22,2013

Disorderly Conduct

Three Spokane law enforcement officers are placed on leave over misconduct investigations

Jacob Jones |
Wednesday, May 22,2013

Uneven Cuts

Most elements of health care were shielded from the sequester — but not the Indian Health Service

Daniel Walters |
Wednesday, May 22,2013

Also By Daniel Walters

Lifesaver

Twenty-six years ago, a nurse made the decision that probably saved my life

Daniel Walters |
Tuesday, March 12,2013

Big Business (Enviromentally Friendly)

Three local businesses making green.

Daniel Walters |
Wednesday, April 18,2012

Sudden, Unexplained, Dead

Why is Spokane's unexplained infant death rate twice that of the rest of the state?

Daniel Walters |
Tuesday, April 19,2011
TV

Terriers

This non-canine-centric show just needs to stretch its legs a bit.

Daniel Walters |
Wednesday, September 15,2010


Daniel Walters´ final quotation is this one:
“Why is Spokane Public Schools preparing to spend several million taxpayer dollars on untested, unproven, and largely unseen curricula based on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?” reads the post of one local education blogger.

To read the entire blog article from which this quotation is taken, please see my "Betrayed" blog at
http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/2012/07/school-leaders-refuse-to-say-why.html

Laurie Rogers Sep 06, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

Daniel,
First, allow me to congratulate you on taking a step in the right direction with this story. I have long viewed your work, and that of your paper, with respect to education issues, as little more than blatant shilling for the County’s largest employer – District 81. With this story it appears that you are beginning to dig a little deeper into the morass that is District 81.

I have a few suggestions for you if you desire to continue, in the finer traditions of journalism, to inform the public with respect to this vital issue:

1. Keep digging.

As you researched this story you must have come away from interviews with a sense of the nearly religious fervor with which District 81’s administrators promote the Constructivist approach to education. Equal to the administrations dedication to this failed pedagogy is the McCarthy-like dedication of the Dept. of Teaching & Learning to identifying and rooting out teachers who dare to actually teach directly to the children. In short, our careers are at risk should we be identified as “not on board” with the foolishness that comes from 200 Bernard Street – that “children learn best when they discover their own way to do things.”

Keep digging and you’ll find teachers who have been disciplined, teachers who have been let go, teachers who hide the fact that they teach directly to their students – because the administrators in charge of curricula and pedagogy believe that multiplication flash cards rob children of the “deeper conceptual understanding” that supposedly comes from “discovering” multiplication on their own… Karin Short and Tammy Campbell lead a veritable coven of “true believers” at the Dept. of Teaching & Learning in District 81 – and their philosophy of education has doomed more an entire generation of children to feeling inadequate with respect to mathematics.

Keep digging and you’ll find Dr. Redinger’s commitment to a dialogue about the next elementary math curricula to be disingenuous, at best. Why? Because our last Superintendent, Nancy Stowell, and the Board, in a pathetic gamble for more money, signed onto the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). So, regardless of the outcome of any public discussions on the matter – the next curricula will have to “align” with the CCSS. The curricula written to align with the CCSS are ALL slated to be “reform” in nature. So, while it appears open minded to display the intent to engage the public in a discussion of the curricula – it is just eye-wash to appease the masses. CCSS will define the standards, the standards are constructivist in nature, ergo – constructivist curricula it will be…

Keep digging and you will find that, as you closed your article, District 81 is about to “spend several million taxpayer dollars on untested, unproven, and largely unseen curricula based on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).” You will find that the District is spending millions on data programs to support this federal vision of cradle-to-career data tracking…

2. Engage with Mrs. Rogers and get the non-district approved, un-spun, and quite unpopular FACTS about the performance of the “discovery” revolution in Spokane’s schools. Based on what I’ve seen you and your paper print about Mrs. Rogers and her fellow education advocates – I suspect you might have to apologize to her, with sincerity, for you to get the level of effort she puts into her advocacy and research directed at any effort you make to publish “the rest of the story”, but I suspect you would gain valuable insights you won’t get from the District’s leadership. Many of us found your hatchet job on Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Treffry and Mr. Lecoq in the article about Public Records Requests to be reprehensible. Yet, her obvious concern for the children appears to have allowed her to ignore your slights and give you permission to quote from her blog in this story.

Many of us who teach in Spokane’s schools read Mrs. Rogers blog. (The administration reads it as well – they are ever on the lookout for the leaks, always seeking to determine what they need to “spin” next…) She appears to have it about right with respect to Spokane Public Schools. Many of us have read her book – again, she’s got it pretty close to the truth. We applaud her efforts to get records of the District’s malfeasance via Public Records Requests. Yet, we must remain anonymous lest we lose our jobs. She seems to be doing what newspapers should be doing – putting information out there so that parents and the public can make informed choices. Mend fences with her, and other education advocates, and you’ll find story aplenty.
Sep 06, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

Random thoughts...

"...the meeting devolved into accusations, raised voices and sarcasm."

The meetings (plural) did not DEVOLVE into acrimony - the meetings were deliberately taken there by district employees who were paid to be at those meetings with the express purpose of ensuring that ONLY the "district´s message" got presented.


"Nationally, they’ve been dubbed the “math wars.” Should teachers focus on critical thinking and student exploration? Or, instead, go back to the blackboard with classic formulas and heaps of calculator-free homework?"

Mr. Walters, you present the public with a false choice here. Are you that committed to the discovery program, or to carrying the water for a failing system, or are you really unaware that if that was a quote given to you IT IS A FALSE CHOICE?

It is not a choice between critical thinking and student exploration vs. classic formulas and calculator-free homework. Mastery of basic skills and fluency in classic algorithms ENABLES critical thinking and exploration.


"Reformers believe that memorization of formulae, tables and processes are less important than children understanding how math works."

I have yet to hear a cogent argument for exactly HOW children are supposed to understand HOW math works if they don´t FIRST learn the PROCESSES.


"And none of those six strategies included the traditional vertical method, the sort where you’d “carry the one.” In fact, when she sees her students bring in homework completed that way, she calls their parents and asks them not to teach their children to use the traditional method yet."

PARENTS - If you took the time to teach your child to read before they entered first grade, and then sent your child to the first day of school, and then received a call from your child´s teacher asking you to NOT teach your child anymore "traditional" reading skills - wouldn´t you demand your son or daughter be removed from the clutches of this insane teacher? Why is math somehow different?

PLEASE, teach your children fundamental math skills. Continue to teach them these skills and help them to practice them. ESPECIALLY the use of vertical format addition, subtraction and multiplication. Also, please teach them LONG DIVISION, traditional, boring old LONG DIVISION! The same long division being learned around world.

WHY should you have to teach this to your child? Because, without risking our our employment - we may not teach them. Note, I did NOT say we can´t - we have the ability. What we lack is permission. In fact, we a proscribed from doing so.

We must have your child discover how to divide, then when the become frustrated by the task we must "show" them a couple of alternative methods to divide. When they are thoroughly confused by the multitude of inefficient "methods" of division our bosses demand we show them - we must move onto something else. What we may not do is show them the tried and proven highly efficient method FIRST, ensure they have it down by having them practice it, then give them homework to set the practice firmly in their heads...


"Eventually, by the third grade, the children are taught the traditional method, she says."

Patently FALSE. Not true. A lie. Not in the curriculum.

- And if there were any truth to statement - ask yourself WHY these children have to wait 3 years to finally be taught the most efficient method. Why they´ve had two years of getting inefficient methods drummed into them... (Hint: Because District 81 department of Teaching and Learning says that´s the way it will be. Those people are nothing if not committed.)


Re: Investigations curriculum

Horrible.

"Fortunately, it’s an ideal time to switch. The textbooks are not only at the end of their traditional seven-year replacement cycle, but with Washington state adopting tougher, nationwide “common core” standards, textbooks in all sorts of subjects — including math — will need to be replaced."

The Common Core State Standards are NOT tougher. In fact, they are weaker. Much weaker. But our board and administration fell all over themselves to sign us up. But any curricula will have to align with the CCSS, hence the curricula will be Constructivist in nature.


I could go on most of the night,

Spokane - take your children out of our schools and teach them yourself, or private school them, OR - demand that the board and administration stop this discovery nonsense.

Math war. What war? Parents and children lost this one long ago. It can be re-fought - but that takes time and commitment from parents and citizens who are not suckling at the edu-ocracy teat.
Sep 06, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

Wow. Just confirms my decision of a few years ago.

I used to teach for SPS, Middle School Math, among other subjects.

I quit and took a lower paying job at a private school because of this issue.

The Inlander is, of the two choices in town, the more progressive choice in news. I am surprised that the paper has not come out in stronger terms against this "Discovery" agenda.

If there is one goal the corporations have in this nation - it is the keeping the people down. Not so far down they can´t buy what is available at Wal Mart or McDonalds, just far enough down that those are the only places they can shop and dine. Education, in particular math skills, are the great dividing line between those who will have and those who will have not.

Ensuring kids are confused and incapable in math is the surest way to keep them down as they grow. Pearson Education, Bill Gates, McGraw-Hill - in short - all those pushing and producing these "reform" texts and curricula are aligned with the corporate elite, hell, they are the corporate elite. These type of math programs are tasty, sugary, sweet - but they are empty calories. They make a fortune for the publishers, they make a fortune for the school administrators charged with integrating them into the dumbing-down of the children, and they make a fortune for the tutoring companies out there raping parents to teach their children what the schools won´t.

Parents with money know their children can´t get a college-ready education in Spokane. They send their kids to G-Prep or St. Georges. It is not because they don´t want their children rubbing elbows with their lessors. It is because they expect the education they pay for to produce results - measurable results. Results like 99% of the graduating class moving onto college without the need for remediation. 99% of their graduates in the top percentile on the ACT and SAT. And before anyone excuses those results on the lack of poverty in their student population - Gonzaga Prep takes on students from economically challenged families, not just a few either.

I moved to a lower paying job because I would be allowed to teach, because my results would determine my success or failure, because there are mostly teachers at my school and few administrators.

SPS is bloated with administrators making three times what teachers make, their job to ensure that teachers don´t teach. Reform math is what we used to use with special education students - the classical approach is not working for the so try anything. The average student in this country can easily grasp and use the "traditional" methods of math. The reason to deny them those tools, to convince them that math is hard and just not everybody´s cup of tea - is to keep them down, Institutionalize low math abilities and you get a compliant and dependable consumer.

If you have children in SPS, be the squeeky wheel and force the district to oust those who want to keep you kids on the low end of the economy. Require that they teach your son or daughter classical math first, before occupying their RAM with inneficient and foolish. Sep 07, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

It is time to stop fighting because it should be unnecessary. Using the critical thinking skills extolled by SPS, the solution is to look at the outcomes of the teaching methods. If the so-called traditionalist approach is the better of the two based upon empirical evidence, there should be no debate.

If the traditional approach is the best but SPS refuses to use it, the solution isn´t more bickering with SPS. The solution is to empower parents to take their kids out of ineffective schools and put them into schools that use methods that are proven to work. In other words, let parents have more choices with vouchers and charter schools. If SPS is forced to compete in order to survive, ineffective methods will fall by the wayside. If SPS doesn´t have to compete, it has no need to change, and parents and school children be damned.

The real problem isn´t the math war. The math war is merely a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is the lack of competition which results in a lack of accountability. Sep 08, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close