Being able to rapidly recall arithmetic facts is no longer a critical skill. We have computerized cash registers. Cars compute MPG and distance to empty for us. Arithmetic is old school.

What we are missing is children who can think critically about time value of money, rent vs buy, and the difference between raising taxes and raising tax rates. These are the skills that every citizen needs to live in Loudoun county.

Parents who want their children to compete with calculators and jobs that will be low wage because they are easy to off-shore or computerize (like bookkeeping) are welcome to concentrate on arithmetic skills. I'd prefer that my tax dollars be spent on teaching math concepts that enable next generations to be smart enough to understand complex financial things (think CDOs) even if they have to pull out a calculator because they don't remember how to do long division.

Posted by EdwardMyers (anonymous) on March 15, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is easier for parents to supplement arithmetic skills with flash card drills (because schools don't do enough of it) than it is for parents to supplement a lack of mathematical skills by supplementing problem solving because all the schools are doing is fact drills. Schools should err on the side of too much problem solving and not on the side of rote memorization.

Posted by EdwardMyers (anonymous) on March 15, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The previous poster makes it sound like there has to be a choice. In reality, many schools do both ... teach skills and problem solving. Those schools don't use Investigations though.

The poster also implies the falsehood that its possible to become proficient in mathematical concepts without knowing their math facts. I'd much rather my tax dollars be used to support both facts and conceptual understanding of math and urge other parents demand the same.

Posted by WeNeedSchoolChoice (anonymous) on March 15, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Investigations claims to provide children with a deeper understanding of math. Unfortunately this claim is the math education equivalent of "Loose weight without diet or exercise". Investigations fails to teach the fundamentals necessary to be successful in any math or science field. Investigations is not aligned with the recommendations of the US Department of Education National Math Advisory Panel. Numerous mathematicians have been extremely critical as well. This is what Dr. Stephen Wilson, a MIT educated mathematician who teaches mathematics at Johns Hopkins, has to say about Math Investigations: "If your child goes to a school that uses TERC Investigations, you should understand that it means your child's school has abdicated its responsibility to teach your child
mathematics." See http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/fred.pdf... for further context. Also see http://www.lcpsparents.org/cms/ for some additional info.

Posted by mobb (anonymous) on March 16, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I participated in one of the “Parent Focus Group”, along with Marc Shapiro, quoted in the article above. The article doesn’t say it, and indeed the LCPS Math Review Committee reports will hem, haw, and play-down the fact – but all of the parents at the focus group (including myself) felt Math Investigations (MI) was terrible, not preparing our children adequately for the future. Lots of (vacuous) grand talk about “problem solving” and “concepts” not just rote memorization – but what MI has managed to do in reality is simply “dumb down” the K-5 math.

Interestingly, that is the exact term (“dumbed down”) used by a member of the Math Review Committee in a December meeting to describe MI’s impact on LCPS math. (“Dumbed down” math – is that what we need more of?)

While everyone agrees with the importance of teaching students life-long skills such as “problem solving” and ensuring they have “conceptual understanding”, what the MI-centric folks DO NOT TELL parents is that with MI, all of the traditional building-block elements and concepts that naturally lead-toward, facilitate, and complement such understanding – such as basic math facts, fluency, and standard procedures for addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc – are NOT taught.

So, where do students learn them? I believe the lucky ones have parents who teach their children these important elements at home using e.g. flash cards and supplemental materials pulled off the web, in short sitting at the kitchen table doing all the things you’d hope they would cover at school – but which are curiously absent from MI.

I have advocated, via letters to the LCPS Math Review Committee, that their recommendation reflect (or at least, include) the opinions clearly expressed at the Parent Focus Group, namely a K-5 math program with “balance”, that appropriately “challenges” all students, and that includes “fluency” with basic math facts and concepts. Seems pretty simple – who could argue with that? Go check the MI-centric materials and you’ll find these core elements lacking or completely missing.

In the end, you get out what you put in. From what I’ve personally observed in my (now) third-grader’s math education, MI seems a hollow promise, and I’d ask anyone who says otherwise to actually review one of the MI textbooks and/or their child’s progress and consider. To no surprise, the U.S. Dept of Education report cited at the end of the article (which I’ve not read), apparently gives MI a thumbs down. (What does this tell us, and what should we do? Perhaps if we just stick our heads in the sand, that “news” magically will go away? )
Let’s hope the LCPS Math Review Committee takes into consideration important elements such as these recommendations of the U.S. Dept of Education, and (perhaps equally importantly) the experience and opinions of concerned (voting, and tax paying) parents and their children.

Posted by mike (anonymous) on March 16, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)