Last September I blogged about the Khan Academy, an amazing web resource for students, consisting of hundreds of teaching videos for subjects including algebra, geometry, physics, basic math, biology, chemistry, finance, etc. They were featured on 60 Minutes and other media because of the remarkable quality of the teaching and the consistently excellent results experienced by students who use them -- and the fact that the site's founder, Salman Khan -- did all this for free. Khan Academy started out as Sal making a few algebra videos for his cousins and has grown to over 2,100 videos and 100 self-paced exercises and assessments. It's remarkable.
Once again, I strongly urge you and your middle school and high school students to check out Khan Academy and try one of the short videos. I found myself fascinated by one of the lessons on geometry -- a course I never took in high school.
I'm told that some RHS teachers are suggesting that kids explore the Khan Academy offerings as additional homework help or to delve deeper into concepts. High school kids seem to like the short lessons, and there's just something "right" about the way the teacher presents and explains the material. The district website now has a link to Khan Academy on the Curriculum & Instruction page, under "Internet Resources for Parents, Teachers & Students.". Click here.
Showing posts with label math. Show all posts
Showing posts with label math. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Find out about K-5 Math online resources.
Parents/guardians of K-5 students in the Ridgewood Public Schools are invited to attend a preview of online mathematics materials that are available to them and their children for working at home. Provided by Pearson Success Net, these resources offer interactive games, review and enrichment opportunities.
There are two ways you can get the information:
In-Person: Wednesday, February 2, from 7:30-9 p.m. at the Education Center, 49 Cottage Place, in the Third Floor Board Room: This will be an in-person preview conducted by Pearson staff member Jackie Thompson.
Online Webinar: Tuesday, February 15, from 7:30-9 p.m.: Pearson staff member Jackie Thompson will give an online webinar, which can be accessed from any Internet-connected computer. Click here for directions about how to participate in the webinar.
There are two ways you can get the information:
In-Person: Wednesday, February 2, from 7:30-9 p.m. at the Education Center, 49 Cottage Place, in the Third Floor Board Room: This will be an in-person preview conducted by Pearson staff member Jackie Thompson.
Online Webinar: Tuesday, February 15, from 7:30-9 p.m.: Pearson staff member Jackie Thompson will give an online webinar, which can be accessed from any Internet-connected computer. Click here for directions about how to participate in the webinar.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Monday's Board of Ed meeting: what's on the agenda.
Monday the Ridgewood Board of Education will meet and the agenda doesn't look too unwieldy -- mainly because we just met a week ago. Some of the highlights (full agenda available by clicking here):
-- Recognizing Ridgewood High School's National Merit and Advanced Placement scholars
-- Presentation on some of the math routines our kindergarten students participate in every day
-- Info on crisis management in our schools
-- Approval of our submission of a Grant Application to the Bergen County Historic Preservation Fund for funds to replace the Ed Center's slate roof.
-- Review of some proposed revisions to BOE by-laws and Board policy.
As always, the Board of Education meeting can be viewed live and in person at the Ed Center, 3rd floor, at 7:30 p.m. You can watch the meeting on Cablevision Channel 77, or you can view the live webcast by clicking here. Later, you can view the archived webcast by clicking here.
-- Recognizing Ridgewood High School's National Merit and Advanced Placement scholars
-- Presentation on some of the math routines our kindergarten students participate in every day
-- Info on crisis management in our schools
-- Approval of our submission of a Grant Application to the Bergen County Historic Preservation Fund for funds to replace the Ed Center's slate roof.
-- Review of some proposed revisions to BOE by-laws and Board policy.
As always, the Board of Education meeting can be viewed live and in person at the Ed Center, 3rd floor, at 7:30 p.m. You can watch the meeting on Cablevision Channel 77, or you can view the live webcast by clicking here. Later, you can view the archived webcast by clicking here.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Middle School math scores are up.
Updated 1/24/10 @ 2:22 p.m.
At Monday night's Board of Education meeting, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment Regina Botsford and Grade 6-12 Math Supervisor Dan Ilaria gave a presentation of NJASK math scores in grades 6-8, showing improvement in scores since the current Connected Math curriculum (program) was introduced. The percentages of students scoring Advanced Proficient have increased the most. This has sometimes been a popular topic of discussion throughout our math journey here in Ridgewood, so it was good to see and share some data that supports what the district has been doing with middle school math.
Click here to see the full report, which is on the District website.
As always, standardized test scores are just one measure of student learning, but it is noteworthy to see these particular scores moving in the right direction. It's also worth remembering that a textbook or program (like Connected Math) is just one element of teaching -- many other factors influence student performance, most importantly the teachers themselves. Not every change (up or down) in student test scores can be attributed to textbooks alone. In other words, news like this is good, but it's a snapshot.
At Monday night's Board of Education meeting, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment Regina Botsford and Grade 6-12 Math Supervisor Dan Ilaria gave a presentation of NJASK math scores in grades 6-8, showing improvement in scores since the current Connected Math curriculum (program) was introduced. The percentages of students scoring Advanced Proficient have increased the most. This has sometimes been a popular topic of discussion throughout our math journey here in Ridgewood, so it was good to see and share some data that supports what the district has been doing with middle school math.
Click here to see the full report, which is on the District website.
As always, standardized test scores are just one measure of student learning, but it is noteworthy to see these particular scores moving in the right direction. It's also worth remembering that a textbook or program (like Connected Math) is just one element of teaching -- many other factors influence student performance, most importantly the teachers themselves. Not every change (up or down) in student test scores can be attributed to textbooks alone. In other words, news like this is good, but it's a snapshot.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Board of Education Agenda for Feb. 22
The full agenda for tomorrow night's Board of Ed meeting is on the District website (click here), but here are a few highlights:
-- Update on Referendum projects
-- Update on the Budget process
-- Middle School Math Achievement
-- Awarding the bid for garbage services (the low bidder was Miele Corp...the Village's bid was more than twice the amount)
The meeting starts at 7:30, in the 3rd floor Board Room at the Ed Center. As always, there will be two opportunities for public comment, at the beginning of the meeting and then toward the end. Come on down and share!
-- Update on Referendum projects
-- Update on the Budget process
-- Middle School Math Achievement
-- Awarding the bid for garbage services (the low bidder was Miele Corp...the Village's bid was more than twice the amount)
The meeting starts at 7:30, in the 3rd floor Board Room at the Ed Center. As always, there will be two opportunities for public comment, at the beginning of the meeting and then toward the end. Come on down and share!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Studying the brain to improve teaching and learning.
Interesting story in today's New York Times about how the human brain learns math.
An excerpt:
For much of the last century, educators and many scientists believed that children could not learn math at all before the age of five, that their brains simply were not ready.
But recent research has turned that assumption on its head — that, and a host of other conventional wisdom about geometry, reading, language and self-control in class. The findings, mostly from a branch of research called cognitive neuroscience, are helping to clarify when young brains are best able to grasp fundamental concepts.
In one recent study, for instance, researchers found that most entering preschoolers could perform rudimentary division, by distributing candies among two or three play animals. In another, scientists found that the brain’s ability to link letter combinations with sounds may not be fully developed until age 11 — much later than many have assumed.
The teaching of basic academic skills, until now largely the realm of tradition and guesswork, is giving way to approaches based on cognitive science. In several cities, including Boston, Washington and Nashville, schools have been experimenting with new curriculums to improve math skills in preschoolers. In others, teachers have used techniques developed by brain scientists to help children overcome dyslexia.
And schools in about a dozen states have begun to use a program intended to accelerate the development of young students’ frontal lobes, improving self-control in class.
“Teaching is an ancient craft, and yet we really have had no idea how it affected the developing brain,” said Kurt Fischer, director of the Mind, Brain and Education program at Harvard. “Well, that is beginning to change, and for the first time we are seeing the fields of brain science and education work together.”
The story goes on to describe several examples of innovative programs based on the science of the brain. Click here for the full article.
An excerpt:
For much of the last century, educators and many scientists believed that children could not learn math at all before the age of five, that their brains simply were not ready.
But recent research has turned that assumption on its head — that, and a host of other conventional wisdom about geometry, reading, language and self-control in class. The findings, mostly from a branch of research called cognitive neuroscience, are helping to clarify when young brains are best able to grasp fundamental concepts.
In one recent study, for instance, researchers found that most entering preschoolers could perform rudimentary division, by distributing candies among two or three play animals. In another, scientists found that the brain’s ability to link letter combinations with sounds may not be fully developed until age 11 — much later than many have assumed.
The teaching of basic academic skills, until now largely the realm of tradition and guesswork, is giving way to approaches based on cognitive science. In several cities, including Boston, Washington and Nashville, schools have been experimenting with new curriculums to improve math skills in preschoolers. In others, teachers have used techniques developed by brain scientists to help children overcome dyslexia.
And schools in about a dozen states have begun to use a program intended to accelerate the development of young students’ frontal lobes, improving self-control in class.
“Teaching is an ancient craft, and yet we really have had no idea how it affected the developing brain,” said Kurt Fischer, director of the Mind, Brain and Education program at Harvard. “Well, that is beginning to change, and for the first time we are seeing the fields of brain science and education work together.”
The story goes on to describe several examples of innovative programs based on the science of the brain. Click here for the full article.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Board of Ed meeting tonight
Head on over to the Ed Center, or tune in to our webcast, to watch tonight's meeting of the Board of Education. It starts at 7:30. A few highlights from the agenda:
-- Review of the annual report from our auditor on financial and administrative performance.
-- Some proposed course changes at RHS next year.
-- Discussion of our new Policy Manual...we've been working on revisions for the past year or so. No ground-breaking changes but lots of revision to ensure our policies are in compliance with state regulations. The draft Policy Manual is currently available on the District website (click here), if you want to take a look (warning: it's 1,500 pages long!)
-- Update on Referendum communications
-- Acceptance of donations from some very generous members of our community (thank you!)
-- Update on K-2 Math professional development
-- Various appointments, changes of assignment, bills, etc.
Oh, boy, this week's meeting required a ton of reading. I'm still reading.
-- Review of the annual report from our auditor on financial and administrative performance.
-- Some proposed course changes at RHS next year.
-- Discussion of our new Policy Manual...we've been working on revisions for the past year or so. No ground-breaking changes but lots of revision to ensure our policies are in compliance with state regulations. The draft Policy Manual is currently available on the District website (click here), if you want to take a look (warning: it's 1,500 pages long!)
-- Update on Referendum communications
-- Acceptance of donations from some very generous members of our community (thank you!)
-- Update on K-2 Math professional development
-- Various appointments, changes of assignment, bills, etc.
Oh, boy, this week's meeting required a ton of reading. I'm still reading.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Math scores: NJ up slightly, nation is flat.
(Revised 9:42 AM)
A news release from Governor Corzine today proudly proclaimed:
NEW JERSEY'S FOURTH AND EIGHTH GRADERS AMONG NATION'S LEADERS IN MATH
Fourth grade scores surpass national average by eight points; Eighth grade scores eleven points higher than national average
Isn't that great news? Sure it is, if you define "great" as "not bad" or "better than it could have been."
Another story (New York Times), states that, for the first time in 19 years, U.S. math scores nationwide are "flat." No increase whatsoever.
According to the Times story, "The latest results on the most important nationwide math test show that student achievement grew faster during the years before the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law, when states were dominant in education policy, than over the years since, when the federal law has become a powerful force in classrooms."
NCLB requires schools to bring 100 percent of students to reading and math proficiency by 2014. Guess what, as a nation, we're not going to make it.
Sure, New Jersey's numbers are encouraging, in an inching-forward kind of way. According to the press release from the NJDOE: "New Jersey fourth graders continue to score higher on the NAEP math test than students in all but three other states, the report noted. The average math score of fourth graders in New Jersey was 247, while the average score for public school students across the nation was 239."
"This is good news for our kids, our families and our future," said Governor Corzine. "The average scale score for the grade eight students at 293 is four points higher that it was in 2007 and eleven points higher than the national average of 282. While there is still much more work to be done, the eighth grade results in particular show that the investments this administration is making in education is paying off, and that the efforts of our educators are yielding positive results."
Those are just a few excerpts from the press release. Click here to read the entire thing.
And click here to review the complete NAEP report card.
A news release from Governor Corzine today proudly proclaimed:
NEW JERSEY'S FOURTH AND EIGHTH GRADERS AMONG NATION'S LEADERS IN MATH
Fourth grade scores surpass national average by eight points; Eighth grade scores eleven points higher than national average
Isn't that great news? Sure it is, if you define "great" as "not bad" or "better than it could have been."
Another story (New York Times), states that, for the first time in 19 years, U.S. math scores nationwide are "flat." No increase whatsoever.
According to the Times story, "The latest results on the most important nationwide math test show that student achievement grew faster during the years before the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law, when states were dominant in education policy, than over the years since, when the federal law has become a powerful force in classrooms."
NCLB requires schools to bring 100 percent of students to reading and math proficiency by 2014. Guess what, as a nation, we're not going to make it.
Sure, New Jersey's numbers are encouraging, in an inching-forward kind of way. According to the press release from the NJDOE: "New Jersey fourth graders continue to score higher on the NAEP math test than students in all but three other states, the report noted. The average math score of fourth graders in New Jersey was 247, while the average score for public school students across the nation was 239."
"This is good news for our kids, our families and our future," said Governor Corzine. "The average scale score for the grade eight students at 293 is four points higher that it was in 2007 and eleven points higher than the national average of 282. While there is still much more work to be done, the eighth grade results in particular show that the investments this administration is making in education is paying off, and that the efforts of our educators are yielding positive results."
Those are just a few excerpts from the press release. Click here to read the entire thing.
And click here to review the complete NAEP report card.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Afternoon enVision Math Session Added
There will be two parent information sessions on enVision Math today:
4:00-6:00 p.m.
7:00-9:00 p.m.
Both sessions will take place at the Ed Center, third floor, and will include a presentation on the books, materials and program, a chance to look at the materials, and questions-and-answers with one of the textbook's authors.
No need to RSVP or sign up -- just show up if you want to get first-hand information about how math will be taught in our elementary schools beginning in the Fall.
I understand there will also be "math nights" at individual schools in the Fall.
4:00-6:00 p.m.
7:00-9:00 p.m.
Both sessions will take place at the Ed Center, third floor, and will include a presentation on the books, materials and program, a chance to look at the materials, and questions-and-answers with one of the textbook's authors.
No need to RSVP or sign up -- just show up if you want to get first-hand information about how math will be taught in our elementary schools beginning in the Fall.
I understand there will also be "math nights" at individual schools in the Fall.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Math Presentation
Just wanted to let you know that the complete presentation from the Math Planning Team is now available on the homepage of the District website. Click here. This includes the PowerPoint plus all the links to the data, scores, parent and teacher ratings, etc., that were used to make the selection of enVision Math as the K-5 textbook. There's a lot of info available -- much more than was presented at the meeting. There's also all the historical documents, including the vision statement created by the committee, the criteria by which the textbooks were judged, and more. The webcast of the meeting is also available, click here.
There's new and then there's new.
Last night there was a comment about the newness of the enVision math program. The speaker asked (I’m paraphrasing), “If you had a newborn infant, would you buy the brand new, untested car seat?” First of all, they don’t sell “untested” car seats. Consumers demand some sort of quality/safety testing, the results of which are usually posted on the car seat’s packing or label. But to continue with the analogy, if the car seat was produced by a longtime maker of car seats, a company that has been designing car seats for years, and the latest offering is their newest model, based on previous models but improved through research and testing and redesign, then YES. That’s the car seat I’d buy. I would not buy the first-ever car seat from the brand new “John Doe Car Seat Co.” And I would not buy the car seat marketed as “the old-fashioned car seat, just like the one you rode in as a child in the 60s or 70s.” (Remember, this isn’t my analogy, I’m just taking it a little further to make a different point.)
I, too, questioned the newness of enVision. (Sheila beat me to the question last night!) But then I looked at how it’s really an evolution of traditional math programs from Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley, with “improvements” based on what educators have learned about teaching and learning.
I thought a lot this week about the concept of newness and our different reactions to it. Sometimes we’re excited by the new. We’re drawn to it. It’s human nature and it’s also part of our American culture. But other times we’re just as skeptical of the new. We don’t trust it. It’s unfamiliar. We want the comfort of the things we know. The good old days. I’m not sure what it is that triggers one response over the other. I can honestly say when I first read about enVision, I said, “well, scratch that one, it’s too new.” But then I looked into it and my opinion changed. I became more comfortable. Turning the pages of the textbooks and speaking to teachers who use it (in other districts), I moved from the skeptical to the excited. And maybe that’s part of the recipe for our response to new things: Education. Information. Research. The more we know about something, the more we are able to feel comfortable about it, regardless of it being new or old.
Have a good evening.
I, too, questioned the newness of enVision. (Sheila beat me to the question last night!) But then I looked at how it’s really an evolution of traditional math programs from Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley, with “improvements” based on what educators have learned about teaching and learning.
I thought a lot this week about the concept of newness and our different reactions to it. Sometimes we’re excited by the new. We’re drawn to it. It’s human nature and it’s also part of our American culture. But other times we’re just as skeptical of the new. We don’t trust it. It’s unfamiliar. We want the comfort of the things we know. The good old days. I’m not sure what it is that triggers one response over the other. I can honestly say when I first read about enVision, I said, “well, scratch that one, it’s too new.” But then I looked into it and my opinion changed. I became more comfortable. Turning the pages of the textbooks and speaking to teachers who use it (in other districts), I moved from the skeptical to the excited. And maybe that’s part of the recipe for our response to new things: Education. Information. Research. The more we know about something, the more we are able to feel comfortable about it, regardless of it being new or old.
Have a good evening.
Monday, May 18, 2009
On the agenda for the May 18 Board of Ed meeting.
(Updated 10:40 AM)
The big day is here: MATH is on the agenda. It's a big day because it will hopefully be the beginning of the end of two-plus years of Ridgewood's "math war." Dr. Fishbein will present the Math Planning Team's recommended math textbook for grades K-2 (following to grades 3-5 in 2010-11). As noted in the meeting agenda, which was posted on the district website on Friday, the recommended text is enVision Math.
The Board and the public will hear a presentation on the rationale for the recommendation, how enVision meets our criteria for a math program, and how it fits with our vision statement. The Board will be asked to vote to approve the purchase of the textbooks. The Board will listen, ask questions, consider the Math Planning Team's background and the research that we've been doing individually since the four finalists were announced.
For those who may have heard that the Board is somehow "breaking the law" in the process to be followed in approving the textbook...don't believe it. Here's the thing: Those who are claiming "foul" are mistakenly using the wrong section of Board policy. Policy 6141 states that the superintendent shall "establish procedures for curriculum development which ensure the effective participation of... parents/guardians and the community...” etc etc. This policy pertains to curriculum, NOT textbooks. We've had this discussion before, as you may recall: curriculum is what the students will learn... textbooks are how it will be taught. We're not voting on a new curriculum -- the curriculum is elementary math and we already teach elementary math. The curriculum that we follow is not changing. Just the textbook is changing. (An example of a new curriculum would be the RAHP program...or the new SAIL (special ed) program at the high school.)
We do have a policy for textbook adoption and approval. It's #6161.1 and it says any recommendation for new textbooks requires:
A. Review and recommendation for selection by teaching staff members, particularly those who will be using the materials. (This was done by the Math Planning Team and teacher-input meetings.)
B. A written summary of the review process and the reasons for the selection, including the titles and publishers of other texts selected. (This would be the Math Plan, the criteria, the vision statement, and the four finalists, all of which have been publicly announced.)
C. Opportunity for Board members to examine recommended texts and other instructional materials prior to approval pursuant to NJSA 18A:34-1. (Board members have had access to the finalists for quite some time, and each of us has reviewed the books and materials, in addition to other research, which could include readings, interviews, etc.)
It does not say anything about a waiting period between the recommendation and the vote.
(Note to self: as we are updating and revising our policies this year and next, let's clear up these sections so there's no confusion.)
What else is on the agenda?
• We're going to talk about establishing a committee (as per our policy) to consider awarding naming rights for various facilities (such as the stadium or other athletic facilities). This is a topic that's coming up more and more across the country, as cash-strapped districts look for new ways to create revenue. Click here for an article from the Bergen Record last year. Before anybody reacts with shock or excitement at the prospect of a named football field or whatever, keep in mind this is just a committee being established, to start talking. We already have a policy for this, so if it's something that might be on the radar, let's follow the policy and start by forming a committee.
I don't have my agenda in front of me and I can't remember anything else at the moment. I'll update more tomorrow if I think of anything else notable.
The big day is here: MATH is on the agenda. It's a big day because it will hopefully be the beginning of the end of two-plus years of Ridgewood's "math war." Dr. Fishbein will present the Math Planning Team's recommended math textbook for grades K-2 (following to grades 3-5 in 2010-11). As noted in the meeting agenda, which was posted on the district website on Friday, the recommended text is enVision Math.
The Board and the public will hear a presentation on the rationale for the recommendation, how enVision meets our criteria for a math program, and how it fits with our vision statement. The Board will be asked to vote to approve the purchase of the textbooks. The Board will listen, ask questions, consider the Math Planning Team's background and the research that we've been doing individually since the four finalists were announced.
For those who may have heard that the Board is somehow "breaking the law" in the process to be followed in approving the textbook...don't believe it. Here's the thing: Those who are claiming "foul" are mistakenly using the wrong section of Board policy. Policy 6141 states that the superintendent shall "establish procedures for curriculum development which ensure the effective participation of... parents/guardians and the community...” etc etc. This policy pertains to curriculum, NOT textbooks. We've had this discussion before, as you may recall: curriculum is what the students will learn... textbooks are how it will be taught. We're not voting on a new curriculum -- the curriculum is elementary math and we already teach elementary math. The curriculum that we follow is not changing. Just the textbook is changing. (An example of a new curriculum would be the RAHP program...or the new SAIL (special ed) program at the high school.)
We do have a policy for textbook adoption and approval. It's #6161.1 and it says any recommendation for new textbooks requires:
A. Review and recommendation for selection by teaching staff members, particularly those who will be using the materials. (This was done by the Math Planning Team and teacher-input meetings.)
B. A written summary of the review process and the reasons for the selection, including the titles and publishers of other texts selected. (This would be the Math Plan, the criteria, the vision statement, and the four finalists, all of which have been publicly announced.)
C. Opportunity for Board members to examine recommended texts and other instructional materials prior to approval pursuant to NJSA 18A:34-1. (Board members have had access to the finalists for quite some time, and each of us has reviewed the books and materials, in addition to other research, which could include readings, interviews, etc.)
It does not say anything about a waiting period between the recommendation and the vote.
(Note to self: as we are updating and revising our policies this year and next, let's clear up these sections so there's no confusion.)
What else is on the agenda?
• We're going to talk about establishing a committee (as per our policy) to consider awarding naming rights for various facilities (such as the stadium or other athletic facilities). This is a topic that's coming up more and more across the country, as cash-strapped districts look for new ways to create revenue. Click here for an article from the Bergen Record last year. Before anybody reacts with shock or excitement at the prospect of a named football field or whatever, keep in mind this is just a committee being established, to start talking. We already have a policy for this, so if it's something that might be on the radar, let's follow the policy and start by forming a committee.
I don't have my agenda in front of me and I can't remember anything else at the moment. I'll update more tomorrow if I think of anything else notable.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Is this an April Fools' joke?
I can't decide...several news outlets reported on a story today about baby chicks being able to do addition and subtraction. Is that what they mean by fuzzy math? Here's a link, what do you think?
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
I'm amazed at what teachers can accomplish...
I was looking at the new draft proposal of the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards for Mathematics and one thing struck me: the sheer volume of specific items we require teachers to teach or, more accurately, students to learn, in any year. The content standards are made up of something called "Cumulative Progress Indicators" or CPIs. These are the "things" students are expected to learn. For example, in 4th grade, the first CPI is "Read and Write Whole Numbers through 999,9999." I did an experiment. I don't know how useful it is, I just thought it was interesting. I counted all the CPIs for a single grade, in this case 4th (for no reason). In 4th grade there are a total of 59 CPIs listed. Then I calculated, in a school year we start with 180 days. Subtract 5 for field trips or assemblies or other special events. That leaves 175 days. (I used mental math haha.) If a teacher devotes 45 minutes every day to math, that gives a total 131 hours a year for math. This translates to just about 2 hours for each CPI. Now, some of them, obviously (like counting), won't take two hours (although maybe it would take more than two hours for some kids). But other concepts (like "4.4.4.B.3 Describe the elements of a vertex-edge graph using terms such as, edges, vertices, nodes, neighbors and count the possible paths between any two nodes of a simple vertex-edged graph") must take much longer to teach so that all the kids in the class understand. I just think that's a remarkable pace to keep up, day in and day out, no matter what type of textbook or teaching style a teacher uses.
Monday, January 26, 2009
District Vision Statement for Math
The Math Team has released the district Vision Statement for Math. The Team will use this Vision Statement to create the criteria for evaluating textbooks/programs. I was going to type the Vision Statement here, but I have to get some work done first. I'll try to get it done tomorrow. In the meantime you can read the PDF by clicking here. I think it looks pretty comprehensive. Any feedback?
Friday, January 16, 2009
Doing my research...myself
Just wanted to share with you my reading and study on math. Lest anybody think I get all my info from the Ed Center, the truth is I actually get very little over there. Sure, I'm receiving updates from the Math Planning Team, but those aren't too detailed. Mr. Vallerini and Mrs. Lenhard are the Board Members on the Curriculum Committee, so they are more involved with them. I'm sure I could get all kinds of materials at the Ed Center, but my style is to do my own research. Below is a list of what I've been reading the past year or so (approximately 90% of this was sourced be me directly...the advantage of self-employment is plenty of time to surf the web...some of them are on my shelf waiting to be read ASAP).
Please suggest any reading you think I should be doing!
in no particular order (list updated 1/18/09)...
Books
The Equation for Excellence: How to Make Your Child Successful at Math (Vohra)
Math Doesn’t Suck: How to Survive Middle School Math without Breaking a Nail (McKellar)
Math for humans: Teaching Math through 8 Intelligences (Wahl)
Math Wars: A Guide for Parents & Teachers (Latterell)
Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What are they? What Do Students Learn? (Studies in Mathematical Learning), (Senk & Thompson)
What’s Math Got to Do with It? (Boaler)
What Successful Math Teachers Do. (Posamentier)
Articles & Reports
"Rigor Redefined," Wagner. Educational Leadership, 10/08
“A Formula to End the Divide,” Posamentier, Bergen Record, 6/19/07
“Abandoning traditional math approach doesn’t add up.” Posamentier, Bergen Record, 6/11/08
“How Does it Add Up?” Views on Math Education.” Posamentier. Education Update, Inc.
“Where Has All the Knowledge Gone?”, Boaler, Education Week, 10/8/08
“Reaching for Common Ground in K-12 Mathematics Education,” Ball, Milgram, et al., Notices of the AMS, 10/05
“Study Suggests Math Teachers Scrap Balls and Slices,” Chang. NY Times 4/25/08
“Report Urges Changes in Teaching Math,” Lewin. NY Times 3/14/08
“Clarifying Misconceptions about Investigations in Number, Data and Space,” Prince William County Schools Mathematics Focus Group
“Are We Failing Our Geniuses?,” Cloud. Time. 8/16/07
“10 Myths (Maybe) About Learning Math,” Mathews. Washington Post. 5/31/05
“Learning from Singapore Math,” Leinwand & Ginsburg. Educational Leadership, 11/07
"On Professional Judgment and the National Mathematics Advisory Panel Report: Curricular Content," Thompson. Educational Researcher, 12/08
Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel
Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2006
Websites
What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences
Mathematically Correct
Mathematically Sane
Math Panel Watch
National Assessment of Educational Progress Mathematics Study 2003
Math Forum at Drexel University
Please suggest any reading you think I should be doing!
in no particular order (list updated 1/18/09)...
Books
The Equation for Excellence: How to Make Your Child Successful at Math (Vohra)
Math Doesn’t Suck: How to Survive Middle School Math without Breaking a Nail (McKellar)
Math for humans: Teaching Math through 8 Intelligences (Wahl)
Math Wars: A Guide for Parents & Teachers (Latterell)
Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What are they? What Do Students Learn? (Studies in Mathematical Learning), (Senk & Thompson)
What’s Math Got to Do with It? (Boaler)
What Successful Math Teachers Do. (Posamentier)
Articles & Reports
"Rigor Redefined," Wagner. Educational Leadership, 10/08
“A Formula to End the Divide,” Posamentier, Bergen Record, 6/19/07
“Abandoning traditional math approach doesn’t add up.” Posamentier, Bergen Record, 6/11/08
“How Does it Add Up?” Views on Math Education.” Posamentier. Education Update, Inc.
“Where Has All the Knowledge Gone?”, Boaler, Education Week, 10/8/08
“Reaching for Common Ground in K-12 Mathematics Education,” Ball, Milgram, et al., Notices of the AMS, 10/05
“Study Suggests Math Teachers Scrap Balls and Slices,” Chang. NY Times 4/25/08
“Report Urges Changes in Teaching Math,” Lewin. NY Times 3/14/08
“Clarifying Misconceptions about Investigations in Number, Data and Space,” Prince William County Schools Mathematics Focus Group
“Are We Failing Our Geniuses?,” Cloud. Time. 8/16/07
“10 Myths (Maybe) About Learning Math,” Mathews. Washington Post. 5/31/05
“Learning from Singapore Math,” Leinwand & Ginsburg. Educational Leadership, 11/07
"On Professional Judgment and the National Mathematics Advisory Panel Report: Curricular Content," Thompson. Educational Researcher, 12/08
Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel
Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2006
Websites
What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences
Mathematically Correct
Mathematically Sane
Math Panel Watch
National Assessment of Educational Progress Mathematics Study 2003
Math Forum at Drexel University
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Did you hear the one about the math expert who wasn't invited to the party?
I understand a few folks are riled up about a Harvard-educated math person, Dr. Stotsky, who supposedly "offered" her services to the District in our math quest. There's an email circulating with plenty of misinformation and spin. Here's my PERSONAL take on, and clarification of, the situation. (And, just so we're clear, by "personal" I mean these are my opinions and perspectives only and I am in no way speaking for the Board.)
1) We are pretty far into the process (as the email writer says, 2 years) and the administration may feel that to bring in new participants now might bog things down, require backtracking, etc. I can understand that. We need to keep moving forward, the community has waited long enough.
2) The Math Planning Team's experts are also learned and experienced. One could argue that they may be more math-focused than Dr. Stotsky, as my quick read of her background shows an emphasis also on reading/language. But I'll agree that she's at least "as expert" as the others. (And BTW, the more I learn about the politics involved in the National Math Panel, the less I view its report as the 10 Commandments, nor its participants as the high priests of math...sorry, not sure why I veered into religious terminology!)
3) Dr. Stotsky should not be characterized as a somehow "more objective" observer. Like many mathematics experts, she is also a consultant to a textbook company (Sadler-Oxford Mathematics). I have no idea if that company's programs are being considered in Ridgewood, but the point is, everyone has a point of view; seems to me there is no such thing as a truly objective expert.
4) Dr. Stotsky did not benignly "learn of" our internal math divisions but rather was recruited by a parent.
5) There has been no direct communication between Dr. Stotsky and the District administration. She did not approach, write, call or email the District.
6) The misinformation email says there's "no end in sight" in our math effort. That's not true. The Team is working according to a publicized schedule/plan and the end is certainly within sight.
7) The email mentions Dr. Stotsky's involvement in Massachusetts' high scores in the TIMMS test, and that Mass is "one of only two U.S. states to receive top scores in the international TIMMS tests, scores that rank them near the Asian countries that lead the TIMMS every year." The truth of Massachusetts' TIMMS performance should be taken with a grain of salt -- there were only a few states who even participated in the tests as states. New Jersey did not. (It's my understanding that any state or group of schools can pay to be scored as a group). The test mainly measures countries' performance. Also, Massachusetts is not New Jersey (in a nutshell). (And as an aside, isn't Massachusetts the home of TERC/Investigations? Aren't they using it in a lot of schools there? What does that mean?. Kind of ironic, at the very least!)
You know what, Mr. Misinformation? This is not helping. (And by "this" I don't mean talking about math. Talking and sharing are good. I welcome your comments. What's not helpful is spreading misinformation and trying to fan the flames.) We have a plan. We have smart Ridgewood educators working on the plan. We have experts advising our educators. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Team comes up with and asking my questions at that time.
1) We are pretty far into the process (as the email writer says, 2 years) and the administration may feel that to bring in new participants now might bog things down, require backtracking, etc. I can understand that. We need to keep moving forward, the community has waited long enough.
2) The Math Planning Team's experts are also learned and experienced. One could argue that they may be more math-focused than Dr. Stotsky, as my quick read of her background shows an emphasis also on reading/language. But I'll agree that she's at least "as expert" as the others. (And BTW, the more I learn about the politics involved in the National Math Panel, the less I view its report as the 10 Commandments, nor its participants as the high priests of math...sorry, not sure why I veered into religious terminology!)
3) Dr. Stotsky should not be characterized as a somehow "more objective" observer. Like many mathematics experts, she is also a consultant to a textbook company (Sadler-Oxford Mathematics). I have no idea if that company's programs are being considered in Ridgewood, but the point is, everyone has a point of view; seems to me there is no such thing as a truly objective expert.
4) Dr. Stotsky did not benignly "learn of" our internal math divisions but rather was recruited by a parent.
5) There has been no direct communication between Dr. Stotsky and the District administration. She did not approach, write, call or email the District.
6) The misinformation email says there's "no end in sight" in our math effort. That's not true. The Team is working according to a publicized schedule/plan and the end is certainly within sight.
7) The email mentions Dr. Stotsky's involvement in Massachusetts' high scores in the TIMMS test, and that Mass is "one of only two U.S. states to receive top scores in the international TIMMS tests, scores that rank them near the Asian countries that lead the TIMMS every year." The truth of Massachusetts' TIMMS performance should be taken with a grain of salt -- there were only a few states who even participated in the tests as states. New Jersey did not. (It's my understanding that any state or group of schools can pay to be scored as a group). The test mainly measures countries' performance. Also, Massachusetts is not New Jersey (in a nutshell). (And as an aside, isn't Massachusetts the home of TERC/Investigations? Aren't they using it in a lot of schools there? What does that mean?. Kind of ironic, at the very least!)
You know what, Mr. Misinformation? This is not helping. (And by "this" I don't mean talking about math. Talking and sharing are good. I welcome your comments. What's not helpful is spreading misinformation and trying to fan the flames.) We have a plan. We have smart Ridgewood educators working on the plan. We have experts advising our educators. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Team comes up with and asking my questions at that time.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Reading about Math
While the District's Math Planning Team meets and does its research, I've been doing a little math reading of my own. If you want to get some outside-the-village perspective on our math conversation over the past couple of years, I highly recommend the book, What's Math Got to Do with It? by Jo Boaler. Lots of clear information on the reform math approach. I just finished that and next I'm on to The Equation for Excellence: How to Make Your Child Excel at Math by Arvin Mohra. It appears to be focused on more traditional, "non-fuzzy" teaching. After that, I plan to read Math Wars: A Guide for Parents and Teachers by Latterell. It purports to be an objective/academic presentation of both sides, leaving conclusions up to the reader. We shall see. I'm also intrigued by Math for Humans: Teaching Math through 8 Intelligences (Wahl) and Math Doesn't Suck: How to Survive Middle School Math without Breaking a Nail (McKellar).
Just thought I'd share these resources. I also have a list of interesting journal articles, which I'll post later.
Dear Amazon, you're welcome. Ha.
Just thought I'd share these resources. I also have a list of interesting journal articles, which I'll post later.
Dear Amazon, you're welcome. Ha.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Math Gains Reported for U.S. Students
Good news regarding US students' math education: according to the latest TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) survey, which is the world’s largest review of math and science achievement, American fourth- and eighth-grade students made solid achievement gains in math in recent years. Read the entire New York Times article by clicking here.
The gap is still large between the US and some of the Asian countries, but the US scores did show some of the largest margins of improvement in math from 1995 to 2007. We may be getting better, but as one of the report's authors said, the other countries aren't sitting still. Are we gaining on them?
Of course, this is just one study (albeit a study that I believe is pretty universally recognized as objective and accurate). No one should base all their opinions on just one study. Just thought I'd put this info out there...
The gap is still large between the US and some of the Asian countries, but the US scores did show some of the largest margins of improvement in math from 1995 to 2007. We may be getting better, but as one of the report's authors said, the other countries aren't sitting still. Are we gaining on them?
Of course, this is just one study (albeit a study that I believe is pretty universally recognized as objective and accurate). No one should base all their opinions on just one study. Just thought I'd put this info out there...
Monday, November 3, 2008
Topics at the BOE meeting 11/3
As always, the full agenda is posted here. But if you want to know the highlights, here's a snapshot of some of the items on the agenda for tomorrow night:
We'll be reviewing the calendar for developing the 09-10 budget. This will be of particular interest to me since I've never gone through the process before. The work on budget actually begins this week, in order to have a final budget proposal for the election next April. Tomorrow's agenda also says we'll be discussing "budget what ifs". Hmm...sounds depressing.
We'll have a first reading of the proposed Nepotism policy. This is something mandated by the state, that we must update in our district policy manual. Basically, no relative of a Board member or Superintendent may be employed by the district. Currently, there is no prohibition on the employment of relatives.
We'll get an update on the Math Planning Team and the public input meeting which was held last week. And by the way, there is still time for you to email your input on elementary math. PLEASE email your thoughts to KKiedaisch@ridgewood.k12.nj.us before November 10.
Oh I just remembered...I should give a little report of my time in Atlantic City last week. Some of us were there for the New Jersey School Boards Association annual Workshop. It was definitely interesting. More to come...
We'll be reviewing the calendar for developing the 09-10 budget. This will be of particular interest to me since I've never gone through the process before. The work on budget actually begins this week, in order to have a final budget proposal for the election next April. Tomorrow's agenda also says we'll be discussing "budget what ifs". Hmm...sounds depressing.
We'll have a first reading of the proposed Nepotism policy. This is something mandated by the state, that we must update in our district policy manual. Basically, no relative of a Board member or Superintendent may be employed by the district. Currently, there is no prohibition on the employment of relatives.
We'll get an update on the Math Planning Team and the public input meeting which was held last week. And by the way, there is still time for you to email your input on elementary math. PLEASE email your thoughts to KKiedaisch@ridgewood.k12.nj.us before November 10.
Oh I just remembered...I should give a little report of my time in Atlantic City last week. Some of us were there for the New Jersey School Boards Association annual Workshop. It was definitely interesting. More to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
