Evidence-based teaching methods for helping students who are at risk for school failure or who have disabilities.
This time the folks at “Weapons of Math Destruction” have raised the spectre of the Follow Through study of early education models. The cartoon characters (has a ring to it, doesn’t it?) are examining a graph showing the results of a comparison of alternative models of instruction.
Follow this link to get to the full site where you can explore at your leisure.
One of the folks at the Access Center wrote to me a while ago to promote its Web presence. There are some free resources available, and some readers might find them instructive.
The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for All Students k-8 (www.k8accesscenter.org), [is] a federally funded national technical assistance center. I am taking this time to introduce you to our free resources. Our resources focus on core content areas - language arts, math, and science - as well as on instructional and learning strategies to provide students with disabilities access to rigorous academic content. We have a series of professional development modules and information briefs that are available on our Web site as well as on a CD-ROM, if requested.
The Access Center training modules are multi-component training packages designed to enhance content and pedagogical knowledge and can be integrated into teacher education coursework and used for professional development. They include:
* Effective Interventions for Struggling Readers: The Alphabetic Principle
* Effective Interventions for Struggling Readers: Fluency
* Effective Interventions for Struggling Readers: Vocabulary
* Effective Interventions for Struggling Readers: Comprehension
* Strategies for Accessing Algebraic Concepts (K-8)
* Enhancing Your Instruction through Differentiation
* Improving Access to the General Curriculum for Students with Disabilities through Collaborative Teaching
* Supervising Co-Teaching Teams: Whose Line is it Anyway?Our information briefs are short documents that cover a range of topics (mathematics, reading, language arts, science, instructional and learning strategies, and Universal design for Learning) and include supporting research and suggestions for facilitating the application of research into practice. Many of the information briefs can be used in combination with our modules as additional research-based references or further examples of teaching and learning strategies. Briefs also can be used to supplement teacher education coursework and provide students with additional resources to explore.
I might’ve mentioned the Access Center previously, because I made an electronic presentation for it a few years ago. That may lower the opinion of the resources even before folks have reviewed them. And, by the way, I’ve not reviewed the materials closely, so I can’t vouch for their utility or accuracy. But, take a look!
Don Hirsch published an editorial in Education Week that tells it true. We need, he argues, to place a greater emphasis on what and how we teach during children’s early school years. Of course, he champions his recommendation for adopting a clear curriculum during the early years, too. But, the big idea is that the primary and elementary grades are very important if students are to be able to excel in high school and college.
The elementary grades are much more important than is apparently credited by philanthropies like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has recently been giving many millions to high school reform—with negligible results per dollar. For many years, the philanthropic and policy worlds have placed a lot of emphasis on the two ends of precollegiate education—high school and preschool. They are right about preschool—but not about high school. The general knowledge and vocabulary required for effective learning at the high school level are the fruits of a long process. The way to reform high school is to prepare students effectively in the elementary years to thrive there. If, in recent decades, high school has become a place where students are offered a smorgasbord of watered-down subjects, that is because watered-down subjects are all that our ill-educated students are now prepared to understand.
Link to Professor Hirsch’s editorial (note that a subscription may be required to read the entire piece, but you can get one for free).
Yep, those folks at “Weapons of Math Destruction” apparently do not find constructivist approaches to teaching arithmetic and mathematics palatable. In this cartoon, the school administrators have crossed out practice and skills and a parent is responding by preparing to (ahem) regurgitate or recovering from having regurgitated.
Follow this link to get to the full site where you can explore at your leisure.
Singapore Math was featured in an article by Mitchell Landsberg on the front of the Web site of the Los Angeles (CA, US) Times on 9 March 2008. To introduce his case study of the success of Singapore math, Mr. Landsberg used a clever bar-math-like lead:
Here’s a little math problem:
In 2005, just 45% of the fifth-graders at Ramona Elementary School in Hollywood scored at grade level on a standardized state test. In 2006, that figure rose to 76%. What was the difference?
If you answered 31 percentage points, you are correct. You could also express it as a 69% increase.
But there is another, more intriguing answer: The difference between the two years may have been Singapore math.
On it’s face, Singapore Math looks appealing. It has multiple strengths: teaching students algorithms; integrated and multiple repetitions; low reading load; etc. What it doesn’t really have is clear and powerful research support; in their synthesis of research on effective programs in elementary mathematics, Bob Slavin and Cynthia Lake could not find strong studies examining the effects of Singapore Math. We—educators concerned with providing effective instruction for students—need those studies.
Link to Mr. Landsberg’s article. Link to the review by Professors Slavin and Lake. Learn more about Singapore Math from a study by Alan Ginsberg and colleagues.
Among the many reporters covering the story, John Hechinger of the Wall Street Journal wrote that a US federal advisory panel will soon release a report that is supposed to put to rest contentious disagreement about the teaching of arithmetic and mathematics in our schools. Some have likened the pending report to another report on reading issued by the National Reading Panel at the turn of the millennium.
A presidential panel, warning that a “broken” system of mathematics education threatens U.S. pre-eminence, says it has found the fix: A laserlike focus on the essentials.
The National Mathematics Advisory Panel, appointed by President Bush in 2006, is expected to urge the nation’s teachers to promote “quick and effortless” recall of arithmetic facts in early grades, mastery of fractions in middle school, and rigorous algebra courses in high school or even earlier. Targeting such key elements of math would mark a sharp departure from the diverse priorities that now govern teaching of the subject in U.S. public schools.
Link to Mr. Hechinger’s article.
Bad Behavior has blocked 979 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Latest Comments