Chariho School Parents’ Forum

April 19, 2008

2008 TERC Math vs. 2008 National Math Panel Recommendations

Filed under: Math — Editor @ 6:02 pm

Bill Quick, who has visited before, has notified us of a new report titled, 2008 TERC Math vs. 2008 National Math Panel Recommendations.  From the report:

TERC 2008 Math Fails to Provide the Foundations of Algebra

A major objective of elementary math education is to provide the foundations for algebra, the gateway to higher math education.   Although we call it “elementary math,” K-5 math content is quite sophisticated and not easy to master.   But constructivist math educators believe that concrete methods, pictorial methods, and learning by playing games are the keys to a stress-free approach.  This is the approach found in the second edition of TERC’s Investigations in Number, Data, and Space(TERC 2008).  Unfortunately, as we will explain below, TERC has achieved their “easy to learn” objective by eliminating the content that’s necessary for later success in algebra.  What is this necessary content?  That question  has been at the heart of the “math wars” debate.  For many years opposing sides have failed to communicate.  But a 4-year search for common ground has now reached consensus.  The March 2008 Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMP) clearly identifies the “Critical Foundations for Algebra.”   The primary purpose of this paper is to show how TERC 2008 misdirects students and fails to provide the “foundations of algebra” K-5 math content identified in NMP 2008.  [For a brief analysisof TERC 2008 math, click on TERC 2008 Math vs. NMP 2008 Math: A Snapshot View.] 
The complete set of TERC 2008 5th grade materials, provided by NYCHOLD, served as the primary source for this paper.  The reader will find a much more limited view by clicking on TERC 2008 Curriculum by Contentand following links to PDF documents.  Some of these links will be given in context below. 
 

 

The complete set of TERC 2008 5th grade materials, provided by NYCHOLD, served as the primary source for this paper.  The reader will find a much more limited view by clicking on TERC 2008 Curriculum by Contentand following links to PDF documents.  Some of these links will be given in context below.   

 
 

 

 

Advertisements

7 Comments »

  1. Is the problem TERC or constructivist math? If it is TERC than it is one branded product and when TERC is gone the problem starts to solve itself. If it is constructivist math than it is one approach to teaching math and they can hide what they are doing all kinds of ways. Quick identifies TERC and they move to Prentice Hall to advance their terrible curriculum. We have to stay awake!

    Comment by Real Question — April 20, 2008 @ 12:17 am | Reply

  2. Please notice that it’s Bill Quirk, not Bill Quick.

    Constructivist math is the key problem. Constructivists have eliminated critical content in order to make math easier to learn. It’s easy to do a quick evaluation of a K-5 math program. Do they cover carrying, borrowing,and converting to a common denominator? If not, standard arithmetic is essentially missing. But standard arithmetic is the key to learning algebra.

    Bill Quirk

    Comment by Bill Quirk — April 21, 2008 @ 10:20 am | Reply

  3. Thank you Bill QuiRk. We have been confused if the new math programs Chariho has been piloting is watered down constructivism. Your quick evaluation using carrying, borrowing, and converting should be easy to find out. Perhaps Bill Felkner can ask the asst. super if the new curriculum teaches these math fundamentals?

    Comment by Real Question — April 21, 2008 @ 4:16 pm | Reply

  4. I would check with Deb Jennings – or the Assistant Superintedent. Reality is, I cant be much help. I don’t have the time to go to those committees and I don’t get asnwers to questions like other board members do.

    Comment by Bill Felkner — April 21, 2008 @ 8:43 pm | Reply

  5. I wish the other board members were open to public discussion so we wouldn’t all individually need to go looking for info. During the next election, when they come knocking at my door for votes I’m going to ask them all to use the internet to talk to the people. You would at least think a youngster like Andy Mcquaid would have his own internet site or come here to talk?

    Right now we have Abbott, Felkner, Petit, Cabalbo, and sometimes Buck (through his wife’s typing). Other than this small group willing to publically discuss issues the rest are either internet ignorant or purposely avoid free flowing discussions. Not sure why they hide? I notice that all the politicians willing to engage in uncontrolled discussions are from Hopkinton. I’m sure there is a reason for this.

    Comment by Real Question — April 21, 2008 @ 9:14 pm | Reply

  6. I’m sure there is a reason for it, too. It’s mostly the citizens from Hopkinton on here. It’s not their constiuents on here so they don’t respond but I’m sure many of them read it to guage the pulse of the citizens of Hopkinton.

    Comment by CharihoParent — April 22, 2008 @ 2:02 pm | Reply

  7. Hopkinton constituents do seem much more engaged. Probably why we understand Chariho can’t stay on the same path where our children are undereducated and the employees are overpaid. Hopkinton politicians represent us well as they too are more engaged than their politician neighbors.

    Comment by Truth or Consequences — April 22, 2008 @ 7:20 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: