In a timely commentary written by a long time education reformer at EducationNews.org, the argument that the US lacks the proper "culture" to score well on international exams is given a thorough thrashing by Barry Garelick. Barry's article, "It Isn't the Culture, Stupid" is spot on and a good read. Barry, like me, leans to the political left, which is why I feel this post goes into the lefty column of the blog. Take that, Rosemary!!
But seriously, Barry makes an excellent point (well, of course he does!! Barry has made many an excellent point in the past and I'd expect nothing less from him now. I'm going to have to dig through Barry's past articles and post them in the future.) But I digress.
The point Barry is making now, if I may paraphrase, is that when you blame the "culture" of the US for poor international performance, you need to include more than just our societal woes of too many video games and athletics and parents that might complain about homework load, or students that are unmotivated. I don't doubt that those things exist and make top notch performance difficult for teachers facing unmotivated students with parents that don't care and spend all of their time watching TV and playing on the XBox.
But the schools and school boards and the entire school institution is a very big part of the culture that they blame. Schools that refuse to adopt demanding curriculum materials that build skills and concepts in a logical manner (i.e., Singapore Math) and instead give water-downed programs that spiral around without expecting mastery (Everyday Math, Investigations, Trailblazers) are part of the culture of low expectations.
Homework at the middle and high school level that consists of time consuming artsy projects with little or no academic content are a part of the culture problem.
Teachers that expect the bulk of the academic work to occur at home at night, but waste the school day through poor classroom management skills are a part of the culture problem.
My dear Lynn, I read and ENJOYED the Garelick article. Homeschoolers have been using, among other things, Saxon Math for years. It's a wonderful incremental approach. Mrs. Camp, upon doing a portfolio review for one of my girls when they were little, talked about "sneaking" Saxon worksheets into the curriculum whenever possible. I must say, that comment rather endeared her to me. (Instead of drill and kill, how about the thrill of drill!)
ReplyDeleteSad face. Saxon sold out to Houghton Mifflin Harcout.
ReplyDeleteSaxon sold out. That's why homeschoolers are turning to Singapore Math. And every year, the list of public and private schools using Singapore Math grows. Granby has always been a follower of these trends. Once enough better schools switch to Singapore, Granby will surely follow suit.
ReplyDeleteI hate to be the one to bring you this news, but the US version of Singapore Math is also published by Houghton Mifflin. It's the one that US schools are adopting, claiming that they "see the light". Well, they sort of see it, and better than nothing, and still better than most math programs, but nothing like the "Primary Math" (US Edition) that you can still get on the internet and which most homeschoolers use.
ReplyDeleteLynn, thanks for the kudos on the article.
Do you know what the changes are from Primary Math to the Houghton Mifflin version? I'm hoping you'll say its cosmetic changes. As much as I think the simple black and white pages are "better" and easier for kids to follow without distraction, I know the bright, colorful books with lots of graphics are easier to sell to administrators. But it would be a crime if they slowed the pace or removed the depth of the content.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is cosmetic. You can check out the scope and sequence of "Math in Focus" which is the HM name for Singapore Math, at http://www.greatsource.com/singaporemath/scope-and-sequence.html. It is taken largely from Singapore's "My Pals Are Here" series, which in addition to being a dreadful name, does incorporate some bad aspects of US math like guess and check, and calculators. Also, MiF puts a lot of stock in the bar model technique for solving problems which is certainly an aspect of Singapore Math but not the be-all end-all of the program. It also relies a lot more on manipulatives. To hear newspapers talk about the MiF program, it sounds almost like reform math. I wrote an op-ed about this, located at http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2010/10/06/singapore-math-is-our-dirty-little-secret/.
ReplyDelete