Having been on the Math Advisory Panel and labored through hours and hours of Algorithm discussions to arrive at the language in the WA Math Standards, I found it interesting that four OSPI employees authored a paper on the subject after the Math Standards were approved. The ideas expressed make me wonder, if these folks support the WA k-12 Math Standards as written?
You be the judge.
Read a four page paper:
www.wsmc.net/pubs/WaMath/fall_2008/Algorithms.pdf
The Title is:
Algorithms
by
Greta Bornemann, George Bright, Boo Drury and Karrin Lewis,
Mathematics Teaching and Learning Team, OSPI
Here is a current list from OSPI of Math employees
http://www.k12.wa.us/mathematics/contacts.aspx?printable=true
Key Markers Relating to Organizational Health
12 years ago
9 comments:
OSPI says listen carefully everyone - "Partial products and the traditional algorithm are the same thing." Further bankrupting whatever integrity was left at OSPI. This is the first time I have read an explanation like this - I wonder why it wasn't made clear to us 20 years ago. Why is partial products given a different name. Perhaps Dr. Bright is not so bright. I clearly see a difference between these two algorithms. When do elementary students ever learn to multiply using decimals. Using the lattice method?
Why would you ever put an OPSI stamp on such a nonsensical piece. Do they think no one reads this stuff?
As far as I am concerned this was purposefully written to skirt the intent of the approved standards, standards having a legislative based evolution. The promotion of the notion in this paper by OSPI employees is akin to insubordination, but would not be insubordination in the eyes of the law, unfortunately.
Very craftily and deviously written.
Clearly, OSPI's Mathematics Teaching and Learning Team members that wrote this paper are not running the plays that SBE has called in the huddle at the direction of the legislature.
I wonder who paid them to write this trash? NCTM? MAA? Didactic calculas anyone? anyone?...Lets have more scientific research on the Moore Method. Less teaching is Moore learning. Power is truth. Success for Everyday.
So if schools are plantations and people have a plantation mentality then who are the plantation owners...
School reform is a meaningless pouf. No where on Earth is the parade so grotesque than reading about Washington math reform. Next they'll have children jumping up and down like monkeys.
Dr. Bright - You know there's quite a bit more wrong with the curriculum than just the algorithms. Perhaps you and your friends should teach a class of failing ninth graders and then you might know how bad things really are.
Try teaching Core Plus without a graphing calculator, as I found being done in a Washington school where children had to take Core 1 two or three times and still didn't pass. When they were sent to North school (a group of portables on the opposite side of the parking lot - they were given the Moore treatment, Core Plus without a teacher or a calculator. Your bandwagon needs a farewell song.
Its easy to kibbitz over algorithms, but I doubt you really know what you are doing other than promote calculators for TI. Shame on you.
Dr. Bright probably thinks some people were born to do mathematics and others weren't. He should tell that to more than half the children who can't graduate with a hs diploma.
This little document does nothing more than fatten the pockets of publishers and vendors.
Scientific 'what works' research is nothing more than scientific racism. The NSF funded researchers have done nothing more than change the facts to suit their situation. As a result they've alienated half the youth of our country. Farewell reform, Farewell Dr. Bright.
...and what does the SBE do? Twenty years of insufferable Puritan rule, and you would think someone would have the courage and honesty to see through the veil of bigotry that envelopes our schools. Farewell and adieu, George Bright. Sicily is not far enough.
Simply unbelievable that this is coming from OSPI...
In practice, partial products is NOT the same as the standard algorithm and does not work for larger, more complicated problems (as a previous comment says, try doing it with decimals or with a problem greater than 2 digits by 2 digits). Partial products is good for mental math, but hey, according to Everday Math, most adults reach for calculators for more complicated problems.
Then there's long division, for which Everyday Math does not teach the standard algorithm. According to my child, when the convoluted EDM method was first introduced in the classroom (Seattle School District), the teacher asked who was confused and needed more explanation and half the class raised their hands (my child included). Thankfully, a few lessons at home with the STANDARD algorithm cleared things up. Of course with Everday Math, you don't need to master the topic before you move on because it will be introduced again next year.
When will this math nightmare end?
-Frustrated Seattle School District parent
Post a Comment