� Research - What are the criteria for good research?

� Everyday Math Research – How good is it?

� Connected Math Research – How good is it?

� National Council of Mathematics Teachers: What do they recommend?

� National Math Advisory Panel – What do they recommend?

� Results of 30 years of Reform Math

� What do the Professor’s say?

� Discovery (Reform Math) vs. Direct Instruction (Non-Reform)

Proponets of Reform Math will tell you …

“The research shows”

One needs to ask:

WHAT?

It is universally agreed in the Academic community that the requirements for doing good research are:

1. The 2 populations being compared be as similar as possible.

2. The only difference between the groups is the method, i.e. Reform v. Non-Reform.

(2)

1. No INDEPENDENCE :

Researchers and Developers have a relationship

2. No TRANSPARENCY:

Researchers do NOT release their data for independent review

3. No INDEPENDENT testing

Tests created by the researchers!

(2)

What Works Clearing House, a government agency, evaluated 61 studies on Everyday Mathematics.

� 57 FAILED the Department of Education evidence screens

� 4 passed but with reservations

� 1 found positive effects for EDM with reservations

(3) & (4)

Researchers did not release the data for independentevaluation/peer review (3)

ONE STUDY versus centuries of ONE STUDY versus centuries of ONE STUDY versus centuries of ONE STUDY versus centuries of achievement with nonachievement with nonachievement with nonachievement with non----reform math reform math reform math reform math curriculum is not a reason to adopt a curriculum is not a reason to adopt a curriculum is not a reason to adopt a curriculum is not a reason to adopt a

curriculumcurriculumcurriculumcurriculum.

Often cited “RESEARCH” studies are: Achievement Results for 2nd and 3rd

Grades Using the Standards-Based Curriculum Everyday Mathematics by Fuson, Carroll and Drueck & Achievement Results for 4th Graders Using the Standards-based Curriculum EDM, by Carroll & Fuson

There are serious flaws with the studies:

1. The control group populations are not equal in size:29 children, 1,800, and 2000+, all of unknown origin

2. No INDEPENDENCE:The test used to compare the performance was created by the researchers

themselves.

3. No TRANSPARENCY:

The researchers never released their data for the study. We do not know the composition of the control groups

(2)

� Texas has banned it for the third grade due to the lack of stress on Multiplication. Children are not taught their Multiplication tables! (5)

� Everyday Math systematically downplays addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, which everyone knows are the foundations for all higher math.(6)

� It is an experiment in education..”You see, my child …..will be undergoing an experimental treatment called "Everyday Math," developed by the Chicago RESEARCH project.”(7)

What Works Clearinghouse evaluated 3 studies

ONLY THREE !

� All 3 studies had RESERVATIONS

� The Reservation: NO INDEPENDENCE

The Department of Education’s evaluation of the Connected Math Project’s effectiveness relied on research that was conducted by the authors of the project or their associates

*In one study the researcher worked for the University of Michigan, the creators of Connected Math

*In another study, there were 2 ex directors/developers of the Connected Math team involved in the study (8) & (9)

A report from the University of Washington states “CMP best meets the (then)(then)(then)(then) NCTM

standards”

HOWEVER

“The Algebra level in Connected Math Project appears to be 2 grade levels lower… It is also our prediction that students wishing to take Calculus before the end of their 12th grade year are likely not to be on track to do so after completing 8th grade CMP” (10)

�CMP is not accepted in California as a core/stand alone program nor as a supplemental program. The publisher has given up in having it approved. (11)

�CMP in 2008 has been downgraded by the state of Utah as a core/stand alone curriculum. It is listed for LIMITED use only. (12)

�Prof. Klein, of California State University states “In Connected Math standard Algorithms are never introduced, not even for adding, subtraction, multiplying and dividing fractions” (13)

�Prof. Wayne Bishop, Dept. of Mathematics at California State University, states “Much of Volume One actually DETRACTS from developing algebraic competence… this is not algebra and it is not College preparatory math, no matter what it calls itself.” (17)

In 1989 the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) came out with math standard guidelines that are considered to be the beginning of the current reform math movement.

In 2006 the NCTM came out with new focal points.

“The council says its earlier views had been widely misunderstood and were never intended to excuse students from learning multiplication tables and fundamentals”

“MAKE SURE STUDENTS LEARN THE BASICS”(14)

Chester E. Finn Jr., of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a WA non-profit, and former official at the US Dept of Education blamed earlier math council guidelines for state standards that neglect the BASICS

He described the new focal points as a SEA CHANGE:

“It’s a bit like Lutherans deciding to become Catholics after the Reformation”

(14)

� 2nd grade develop quick recall of basic addition and subtraction recall

� 4th grade be fluent in multiplication and division

� 5th grade: STANDARD ALGORITHM for long division

(14)

NMAP 2008 report found that emphasis on proficiency in key topics is needed.

“Students should understand key concepts, addition and subtraction facts, develop flexible accurate and automatic execution of the standard algorithms and use these competencies to solve problems “

(15)

The panel cautions that to the degree that calculators impede the development of automaticity, fluency in computation will be adversely affected. (15)

A PEER Reviewed study by Wilson and Naiman suggests that excessive calculator use in grades K-12 may have negative effects at the college level. (16)

Now one in Five U.S. college freshman need remedial math courses according to the National Science Board. (14)

“At that stage, unfortunately, I encounter a lot of suffering: not the pain of students struggling on a test, but rather the shock of flunking calculus and being forced to change majors. All too many students encounter a sudden and rude awakening, one that amounts to:”

“You can’t be a doctor an engineer, a chemist, an architect; sorry, you don’t have proficiency.

Prof. Stanley Ocken, Mathematics Department, CUNY (17)

Prof Wilson, Department of Mathematics at John Hopkins University was asked “Comment on the relative merits of traditional instruction, constructivism, and any other approaches to teaching mathematics.” answered as follows:

“I am in no position to tell you how you should teach. If I have anything to offer on this panel it is to let you know what a prepared college bound student is and also to let you know what happens to unprepared college students. Unprepared college students don’t go on to careers in medicine, they don’t go to business school, they don’t study science or engineering or computers. They have to do something else. They don’t have a choice. They are not prepared.” (19)

Professor Rami, Mathematics Department, University of Rochester, states:

“At the elementary level I advise againstEveryday Mathematics.”

“At the middle school level, I advise against Connected Math.”

“Students who follow these programs, unless they have outside tutoring will not be prepared for High School math.”

“Once finished with Connected Math remediation becomes impossibly difficult except by private tutor.” (17)

Professor James Milgram, Mathematics Department, Stanford University, states in his testimony to the U.S. Congress:

“There has been a dramatic drop in content knowledge that we have been seeing in students coming to the University. A large part of the blame rests with “reform math” programs.” (17)

Professor Stanley Ocken, Department of Mathematics at City College, CUNY states:

“Students whose K-8 mathematics programs de-emphasize or eliminate traditional algorithmic approaches will be effectively denied access to formal and abstract mathematical competency..” (17)

Professor Klein, Mathematics department of California State University states:

“I regularly receive e-mails, calls from parents around the country on how to avoid the negative effects of National Science Foundation funded Math… I receive more complaints about Everyday Math.. And the complaints are legitimate. Everyday Math eschews the standard algorithm and does not develop fluency in basic arithmetic.” (17)

1) How to strengthen K-12 Mathematics Education in Massacusetts: Implications of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel’s Report, by Dr. Sandra Stotsky, http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/0806_stotsky_math_ed.pdf

2) Review of the Everyday Mathematics Curriculum and Its Missing Topics and Skills, by Tsewei Wang, Ph.D., Department of Chemical Engineering, The Universtiy of Tennesseee, http://www.lit.net/orschools/critique5_too.pdf

3) It's Official: Everyday Math Sucks,by Jay Mathews, http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2006/09/its-official-everyday-math-sucks.html

4) Everyday Math: Proof that it works? Hardly., by Mark Montgomery, http://www.illinoisloop.org/archive/emproof.html

5) Texas Challenges City on Math Curriculum, by Elizabeth Green, http://www.nysun.com/new-york/texas-challenges-city-on-math-curriculum/66711/

6) Put Two and Two together, by Elizabeth Carson, http://www.nychold.com/oped-nydn-carson-061016.html

7) I’m failing first grade, by Elena Beyzarov, http://www.nychold.com/art-beyzarov-061117.html

8) Flaws in the evaluation process, by Mark Clayton, http://www.math.wayne.edu/~greg/csm3.html

9) What Works Clearinghouse, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/middle_math/cmp/

10) Middle School Math Comparison for Singapore Mathematics, Connected Mathematics Program and Mathematics in Context, Department of Applied Mathematics University of Washington, http://www.wheresthemath.com/images/singapore_report_condensed.pdf

11) Prentice Hall and Connected Math, http://www.hobel.org/mva/id119.htm

12) Norton News, Weekly Math Updates, http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20080813.cfm

13) Math Wars, http://www.hobel.org/lwved/id56.htm

14) Arithmetic Problem: New Report Urges Return to Basics in Teaching Math, by John Hechinger, http://www.oaknorton.com/wsj-arithmeticproblem.cfm

15) NJ Coalition for World Class Math, The National Advisory Panel, http://njworldclassmath.webs.com/nationalmathpanel.htm

16) K-12 calculator usage and college grades, by W. Stephen Wilson & Daniel Naiman, http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ed/pubver.pdf

17) For Professor quotes: http://www.voteboe2007.org/what_professors_say.htm & http://mathematicallycorrect.com/cpmwb.htm & http://concernedcamdentonparents.blogspot.com/search?q=connected+math

18) Massachusetts math wars, by Sandra Stotsky, http://www.springerlink.com/content/05274297232479u2/

19) A Comprehensive Assessment of CMP, Deficiencies Leading to Supplementation that meets Key Tradtional Education Needs, BY Donald Wartonick, www.nychold.org/report-wartonick-2005.doc

Please visit: http://qualitymathchildren.webs.com

to begin your own independent research regarding Reform Math.

The next few pages are regarding the research that Reform Math is based on…..

Regarding Reform Math proponents assertion that these new curriculum are teaching kids to be “problem solvers" Professor Milgram, Mathematics Department, of Stanford University, states:

“The ideas about problem solving that were used in developing these programs rest primarily on a serious misunderstanding of the work on mathematical problem solving by mathematician, G. Polya. Polya was at Stanford during the 1960’s when mathematics educators were starting to quote his work and use it to shape their attempts to introduce mathematical reasoning as a component of K-12 mathematics curriculum. He repeatedly tried to get them to stop, explaining that his work had been done with juniors and seniors at Stanford majoring in mathematics and was not appropriate for use until students had a deep grounding in the subject”(19)

Project Follow through – a 9 year study from 1967-1976, consisting of 70,000 students and more than 180 schools

� Peer reviewed and meets established research criteria

� Researched 20 different approaches to teaching

� 2 main groups:

1. Child directed construction, reform math

2. Direct teaching, non-reform math ( 2)

� The direct Instruction/teaching (non-reform) performed near or close to the national norms

� The child directed (reform) education performed worse than the control group in spite of receiving more money than the direct method

(2)

“Pragmatically, it is clear that most of what students (and teachers and scientists) know about science was taught to them, rather than discovered by them. Empirical challenges come from studies demonstrating that teacher-centered methods using direct instruction are highly effective (cf. Brophy & Godd, 1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986) particularly for teaching multistep procedures that students are unlikely to discover on their own, such as those involved in geometry, algebra, and computer programming (Anderson, Corbett, Keodinger, & Pelletier, 1995; Klahr, & carver, 1988) Finally most cognitive theories predict that many of the phenomena associated with discovery learning would make it a relatively ineffective instructional method (Mayer, 2004). For example, children in discovery situations are more likely than those receiving direct instruction to encounter inconsistent or misleading feedback, to make encoding errors and causal misattributions and to experience inadequate practice and elaboration. These impediments to learning may overwhelm benefits commonly attributed to discovery learning – such as “ownership” and “authenticity.” (19)

The National Science Foundation Directorate for Education not the Directorate for Mathematics and Science:

Prof. Schmid, Harvard University, Math department sent an email to congress stating:

“The NSF directorate for Education and Human resources has caused tremendous damage to mathematics education in the U.S. I say this with a sense of sorrow, since the science directed activities of the NSF have done much to maintain and extend the US lead in science and mathematics research.”(17)

Prof. Sandra Stotsky, “who from 1999 – 2003, was the Senior Associate Commissioner at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Where she directed revisions of the states… PreK-12 standards for Mathematics…” (1) Math standards which resulted with “scores on the 4th and 8th grade math tests given by the National Assessment of Educational Progress placed the state first in the country”(1) states:

“Hundreds of K-12 math coordinators or curriculum specialists who converted to the tenets of “reform math”.. By means of their own arbitrary decisions or decisions by carefully chosen textbook selection committees, these math/curriculum coordinators have increasingly imposed reform math textbooks on the classroom teachers; however, unwanted these textbooks may be. These top down decisions have often been accompanied by attempted or

successful suppression of both teacher and parent dissent”(18)

National Science Foundation – Education Directorate funded programs:

� Everyday MathematicsEveryday Learning Corporation2 Prudential Plaza, Suite 1175Chicago, IL 60601Ph. 800/382-7670

� Math TrailblazersKendall/Hunt Publishing Company4050 Westmark Dr.Dubuque, IA 52002Ph. 800/542-6657

� Investigations in Number, Data, and SpaceScott-Foresman1900 East Lake Ave.Glenview, IL 60025Ph. 800/552-2259

� Connected Mathematics ProjectPrentice-Hall and Michigan State UniversityOne Lake St.Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458Ph. 800/848-9500

� Mathematics in ContextPublished by:Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.Available through:It's About Time Publishing Co.84 Business Park Dr., Suite 307Armonk, NY 10504Ph. 888/698-8463

� MathScapeGlencoe/McGraw-Hill8787 Orion PlaceColumbus, OH 43240Ph. 800/848-1567

� MATHThematicsMcDougal Littell1560 Sherman Ave.Evanston, IL 60201Ph. 800/323-5435

� Pathways to Algebra and GeometryVoyager Expanded Learning1125 Longpoint Ave.Dallas, TX 75247Ph. 888/399-1995

� Contemporary Mathematics in ContextGlencoe/McGraw Hill21600 Oxnard St., Suite 500Woodland Hills, CA 91367Ph. 800/882-6710

� Interactive Mathematics ProgramKey Curriculum Press1150 65th St.Emeryville, CA 94608Ph. 800/995-6284

� MathConnections: A Secondary Mathematics Core CurriculumIt's About Time Publishing Co.84 Business Park Dr., Suite 307Armonk, NY 10504Ph. 888/698-8463

� Mathematics: Modeling Our WorldBedford, Freeman & Worth Publishing Group41 Madison Ave.New York, NY 10010Ph. 800/446-8923

� SIMMS Integrated MathematicsPearson Custom Publishing401 Linfield HallBozeman, MT 59717Ph. 800/693-4060

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0111rey.htm