Friday, November 17, 2006

Math Curriculum and November meeting

A CPC parent alerted me to a letter to the editor in Wednesday's Lowell Sun. The letter was from a Westford parent and was a complaint about the new math program that Westford has been piloting. The parent (and it appears one-time candidate for school committee) was objecting to the "constructivist" math programs, which, according to her, "have been proven time and time again to be inadequate and inferior in providing students with the necessary mathematics skills and knowledge needed ......the math facts and basic computation skills that the K-5 students need are crucial and extremely difficult to make up in later years." This parent now has her child in a private school.

It appears that the term constructivist refers to the type of Math that has been introduced into the Lowell Public Schools. A lot of parents feel that their children are not getting the basic math skills that they will need to build on in upper level classes and in college. By searching around on the internet, I have discovered quite a debate going on about this new way of teaching math. Certainly, the theory behind the new math sounds appealing as it seeks to develop critical thinking and a deep understanding of the concepts that underlie the math facts that we are used to learning by rote.

Expect more on this topic at the next CPC meeting on Monday, November 20, 7 pm, when Superintendent Baehr will give her annual "State of the Schools" address. THe meeting will be held in the Channel 22 TV studio at Lowell High (on the third floor, above the library). Feel free to join us in the studio or watch the live broadcast from home. There will be email and telephone connections available to take questions from viewers.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Lowell Sun featured the Robinson School math teacher as Teacher of the Week. Her comment was that the best way to learn basic skills was to "practice, practice, practice". Without basic skills, the higher skills are much harder to acquire. Constructivism may be good at teaching some things, but like most pedagogies, should not be overused.

2:54 PM  
Blogger Margaret said...

Thank you for your comment! I missed that feature, but it would be great to get more feedback from math teachers about this issue.

8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Worst math ever, overall.

It has it's place,but it is polarized much like whole language vs. phonics.

Why do curriculum coordinators tie the hands of teachers? Why don't they get the whole toolbox instead of half?

Not every method is going to work for every child, so why are kids getting all constructivism all the time, while parents are expected to do the math drills (not reinforce, but introduce and teach) at home. Why aren't teachers able to use their vast educational knowledge to explain different methods to different kids to make sure everyone "gets it"?

10:22 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home