I suspect programs like Everyday math or Trailblazers hold the promise of improving our teaching of mathematics, but will need to be backed up with real professional development or they are bound to fail. The program is not the problem--lack of teacher understanding of math and what math instruction should be is the real problem.
These programs have a great goal--to reintroduce true math thinking into the learning lives of our students in a developmentally appropriate spiral, but that is a goal that is pie-in-the-sky unless the program (and district/school) provides the necessary teacher development. It is a different way to teach math than teachers were taught, so what is the model for teachers to follow? I am not criticizing teachers here--it is not our fault. I did my dissertation looking at math understanding and how it is developed. The reason you are finding younger teachers also struggle is because they, too, were taught through a different model--no fault of theirs. I would say if the program comes with true, strong professional development for all teachers--then it will be worth every penny! If not, it will be doomed, and then people will run around saying it is a bad program--sad. I know in one LA school they introduced the Singapore math curriculum, it had failed in a number of schools that purchased before, but this time they made sure professional development was a consistent part of the equation--viola! higher math scores within a year. More importantly (to me anyway) students and teachers were feeling like stronger mathematicians. :)Bonita ---- Marjory Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have to agree with Lori's thoughts. My system uses Math Trailblazers, > the third of the three "reform math curricula" funded by NSF. Knowing > the spiral is very important, as with so many programs, there is too > much to do in a year. If each teacher or grade level independently > decides to skip a lesson or unit, there could be large gaps in > children's knowledge, or missing essential knowledge for a future grade, > which makes people think that the kids aren't learning with whatever > program is being used. > > We also have definitely found many teachers lacking in mathematical > understanding which impacts both decisions about what to leave out and > good teaching in the lessons they do. We originally thought that this > was more of an issue for older teachers who had never been taught this > way, but we are finding lack of understanding of younger teachers as well. > > That being said, I also believe that teachers should have freedom to > make thoughtful, informed decisions about supplementing or changing some > lessons. > > Margie > > > > Our teachers are struggling to trust sprialed curriculum, insistent upon > > immediate mastery and supplementing with drill, drill, drill. The results, > > our kids aren't doing well and very few classrooms made it through more > > than three investigations. How can we be sure if it truly MI that is > > failing our kids, as many teachers who would like to go back to rote > > memorization and worksheets in long supply, or is a comibnation of a > > failure to implement the curriculum in combination with a lack of deep > > mathematical understandings as a teacher? > > > _______________________________________________ > Mosaic mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. > > Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive. _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
