“The commander in the field is always right and the
rear echelon is wrong” *
The
day the rear echelon stops listening to the
field commanders is the day the troops are
failed.
The
CCPS field commanders (teachers) have been
ignored for far too long – and our troops
(students) have been failed.
The CCPS community values your input.
Please provide your thoughts on
Everyday, Connected and Integrated Math.
This BLOG process ensures
ANONYMITY
--------------------
July 12, 2007
comments: I've taught both middle school and high school in the county. To be
fair, I don't see nearly as many problems with the Integrated series as I did
when I taught Connected Math. Integrated has its shortfalls, but every math text
does. Connected, on the other hand, is the very reason I sought a transfer from
middle to high school. I couldn't stand working with it, and neither could most
of my students. I got so sick and tired of the complaints from parents, which
were typically addressed toward me and not the curriculum or those in charge of
selecting it. One thing I've not seen many people mention is the text-heaviness
of the books. In middle school particularly at the 6th grade level, you have a
significant number of students with very poor reading skills. A math text that
is almost entirely narrative in form (as opposed to using diagrams, formulas,
examples, etc.) is very difficult for them to read and extract meaning from.
Unfortunately, even students who are functionally illiterate are required to
learn from these texts. The "discovery" process has value for gifted students,
but for the average student in my class it did not hold their interest. When
they couldn't immediately assess what they were being asked to find or the
method for finding it, they gave up. By the end of the lesson, when I inevitably
had to share the "trick" to solving the problem, they were restless and bored.
By the end of my experience there, I was very heavily supplementing with my own
notes and formula sheets, along with lecturing and demonstrating strategies in
advance. I also relied heavily on the provided MSA supplementary material- which
was a great resource, but like others have asked: if the Connected curriculum is
so thorough and effective then why the need for all the extra stuff? It really
bothers me to hear the claim about higher MSA scores as some kind of support for
the effectiveness of the curriculum. In my opinion, MSA scores ave risen in
spite of it, not because of it. The upward trend in scores also correlates with
the introduction of intensive test prep, MSA warm-ups and Intervention. I
totally feel the other teacher who said when the kids do well, credit is given
to the curriculum. When they do poorly, blame is assigned to the teacher. It is
definitely true that the majority of math teachers dislike the books (if not all
at my former school) and that we are completely shut down when attempting to
discuss this with Mrs. Wensell or even the math support teachers.
--------------------
June 23, 2007
comments: I taught in a Cecil County middle school. I taught from the
connected books and the Integrated Algebra books. I liked the Integrated
Algebra books. They flowed very nicely and tied everything together very well.
They also prepared the students for the High School Assessment. In fact I felt
like it truly fit the HSA perfectly. My only criticism was that it did not
"cover" as much Algebra as other Algebra 1 books seem to. This may cause
problems for the later classes or may not prepare them for the math they will
see in College. The connected books were extremely frustrating to teach. In
fact, I normally supplemented so much that I barely used the books. I did not
broadcast this. Two things were frustrating... the concepts were supposed to be
"discovered" by the students. So you would take them in a round-about way so
that they could figure out the algorithms or main concept. Although this is a
wonderful way for student to gain ownership of a concept, often the students
were so frustrated by the time we got to the main concept, they had already
given up. Valuable time was lost that could have been used practicing the
concept. The second frustrating part of teaching connected was they fact that
you would spend a ton of time teaching the book and then get to the county made
test and there were questions that were not covered in the book. Also I feel
like it was very hard for parents because there are not any examples to follow
along. The best way to study math is to re-do the example problems this book
did not allow this!I think Mrs. Wensell means well but I also feel that these
books were piloted during the time of MSPAP. These books are more geared
towards that kind of test. And honestly this is where the problem lies--- we
need to chose books that simply are good for the kids not good for the test.
--------------------
June 22, 2007
comments:. Having taught the Everyday Math curriculum for 5 years, I know first
hand the frustration and feelings of being 'dumb' that are experienced by both
teachers and students. If we do not want our children to be left behind, then we
need to change our math curriculum. I was told this program was approved because
a friend of Mrs. Wensell was the one who sold it to the county. Mrs. Wensell
came to our school and beat around the bush when asked questions about Everyday
Math such as what do we do when an entire class does not understand a concept
being introduced and we are introducing a new concept the next day, does she
have data to prove that this curriculum does spiral, etc. I approached the
fractions unit without using the math curriculum. That was the only test my
students all scored an A or B on. Why - because I used every day situations
where fractions are used. I introduced the fractions that the National Council
of Mathematics urges elementary teachers to teach first - 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4.
When my students understood those, I went on to other fractions. This took us 8
school days which put us behind the pacing guide but I am not a teacher for Dr.
Roberts, Dr. Tiegland, or Mrs. Wensell. I am in the classroom for my students.
When these people come to a classroom and teach an entire math unit and then
test the students, perhaps then they will see how this curriculum does not
spiral. As it stands now, most teachers teach to the test which is something
that is cheating our students. If our students truly understood what was being
taught in the classroom, no one would have to teach to the test. As for
homework, my students and parents have asked me why does some of the homework
have 6-7 different concepts (these are called Math Boxes) instead of one paper
that focuses on the concept we are learning. I would like to suggest they call
Mrs. Wensell because this is her idea - not mine. It is truly frustrating and
disheartening to know that I am not teaching my students the basic math skills
they will need for life - adding, subtracting, recognizing and counting money,
and telling time. Instead, I am confusing them and leading them to believe that
any new concepts that they need to know will be given to them in little
increments. When they have all these little bits and pieces of knowledge, they
can then put them together to see the big picture. It doesn't work that way with
a child's mind - they need to master the basic skills before they can gather all
the pieces of higher thinking math and put them together. Hopefully, but I am
not counting on it, the county will rethink this math program or show the data
for our schools/students that proves Everyday Math is successful.
--------------------
18 Jun 2007
comments: Just out of curiosity...has anyone noticed here that the root of many
of these problems is Dr. Carl Roberts?There is no way that a person who listens
so little to his team as well as the students and parents should be running the
show. I don't know if the "CCPSMATH.org" method will work either (although I do
support your efforts whole-heartedly) until Roberts is made to either listen or
go away. Meanwhile...our kids suffer.
-----------------------
June 16, 2007
I agree with all everyone is saying. The scores students receive are despite C.M.
I used old books I found, and taught the old style. I do know that if my boss
would have come in, I would have been in a load of trouble. It does seem that
the teachers are being set up for the fall. If the students do well, then it is
all the curriculum and books, and if the students do poorly then it is because
the teachers are not doing it right. I am just a regular teacher, but students
need to know math. I know they can use a computer or calc. but when it comes to
doing any higher math calc and computers don't help if a student does not know
what they are doing. I know that the higher ups are under the gun to meet all
these tests, but at what cost. The sad thing is teachers really can't voice
concern over what we are doing, because it then we are seen as a bad teacher by
the higher ups because their perception is filtered through the person who loves
the books. I have said this to my bosses, it seems odd that we have to have tons
of "add on" material to help prepare for testing. If what we are using is so
good, we shouldn't have any add on stuff. It is very sad that many great math
teachers are going elsewhere because of circ and books in place right now. Thank
you for this website.
-----------------------
June 13, 2007
CCPS has both an ineffective and ridiculous math system. From the moment the
student enters middle school, everything they have learned about math becomes
applied to useless and repetitive concepts. The connected math system is taught
in all three grades; 6th, 7th, and 8th, while those students that are only
deemed "smart enough" are allowed to take Algebra 1 in seventh grade and
Geometry in eighth grade. Another math course is when the whole sequence is
delayed a year, and either Algebra 1 or Algebra 1A (the first half of Algebra 1)
is taught in eighth grade. Connected math was an utterly ridiculous book system
in which a student learned absolutely nothing related to algebra. As said, at
the end of the course, no algebraic concepts were taught, and students were
released into a real math with no background knowledge at all. Many parents like
to blame teachers for not teaching their children correctly once they see the
failing algebra grade the first quarter of their freshman year, but they neglect
to think about what was "taught" in middle school. Middle school math was
pointless, and all children should have been started at Algebra 1, so once they
graduated high school, they could've AT LEAST reached Algebra II. Another
concern is how slowly the math program truly is. In high school, the average
student would slowly take Algebra 1A freshman year, Algebra 1B sophomore year,
Geometry junior year, and then MAYBE Algebra II. With this sequence, students
leave high school with very limited knowledge on mathematical concepts, the most
"advanced" of them being finding 'x' or the quadratic formula. The CCPS math
system ought to be changed, because everyone is suffering from it -- from the
students to the teachers to the parents and to society overall when in twenty
years all knowledge of calculus or trigonometry would be lost.
-----------------------
June 11, 2007
The students do not seem to be grasping the material in the time allotted and
then it is time to move on to something else. It is not a productive way to
learn. Also, the pre-tests, especially in the younger grades seem to take
teaching time away from the students and it causes frustration for many of them
because they don't know the information and then they get frustrated with
themselves. Go back to the basics of learning the necessary concepts before
introducing a whole bunch of concepts. Give students the opportunity and time to
master the skills!
-----------------------
June 11, 2007
As a Home and Hospital Instructor, I am in a unique position to have been
exposed to every level of the math curriculum in this county. Whenever I call
the board offices to report a problem which I see as pattern, I am told that
there is no problem. Carl Roberts has actually met me at the door of the Public
Meeting and shoved his card into my hand with the words "you do not want to talk
about this in a public forum" (not math specifically that time, but another
issue which sorely needs to be addressed) insisting he would "take care of it".
That was two years ago. That problem also persists. As to the math, our children
are completely befuddled when it comes to negative numbers and have no idea
about math vocabulary. They have had to teach me the new tricks such as lattice
multiplication and the "regrouping" in column addition. The calculator is a
great tool, but only after children know enough about the basics to know whether
they accidentally hit an extra zero or "order of operations" on the calculator
did not recognize where they wanted to place a division sign. No one can do long
division. There is absolutely no practice time on any subject before the student
has to move on to a totally new idea. The fifty or more problems per night that
some teachers assign to get the practice in are rarely done --- kids learn to
cheat quickly with this ridiculous volume of homework. This problem is really
magnified in blocked math classes where three and four sections of a chapter are
covered at the same time. The sections (however all-over-the-map) in the
integrated text actually DO build on one another so when a child fails to "get"
the first section or is absent for a day or two, only the very brightest are
able to catch up at all. Rampant cheating is the result --- it is not a child's
fault if he sees no other way to keep up. Naturally, the test scores are low so
we blame "student laziness", and weight the tests so heavily that kids end up
taking Geometry B three times before passing it. I see it a different way ---
the same way you see it --- too many ideas and no time to get them down before
moving past them. Furthermore, I also have the unique distinction of actually
TAKING every test I give my students because answer keys are rarely provided to
H and H instructors. The result of this is an adult in the system who can verify
the charge that our kids are making --- that is: that the tests routinely test
students on things they were not taught in the unit being tested. Some of the
questions will hark back to a concept taught as many as three years before.
Almost every county test has at least one question which requires students to
extrapolate a new use for the concept only taught a week or less previously.
Then there are the outright mistakes on the tests such as a cereal box which
figures out to cost $14.95 --- without the cereal! Or the bank account that
turns out to have started out with a -$40 principle! One county test had three
such errors. The answer keys are presumably also wrong, so our brilliant
students who write the non-sensical answers get the question wrong; the smart
student who moves his decimal point or negative sign to make the answer more
logical questions his own methods; and the normal student simply adds one more
"?" to his befuddlement! The worst text yet is the Topics of Math book designed
to be used by kids who've already completed Algebra and Geometry in the
Integrated books. There is no logical pattern for what it presents, no formulas,
examples, or even an idea of what they are driving towards and then there are
undoable problems without enough information... I have volunteered to sit on the
panel that makes up supplemental materials to help our kids learn mathematics.
The advantage I have is being a non-math person, so I will not make the mistake
of presuming that "this is simple" like so many gifted mathematicians. Let's see
if this Board takes me up on the offer. Thanks for your time. I will attend this
evening's meeting but my subject will be the one I alluded to at the start of
this letter.
-----------------------
June 10, 2007
As an elementary educator, I am continually frustrated with Everyday Math. It is
very fragmented. We get the county math unit assessments, teach to that and then
it's done. Some young students can't even count or identify numbers and teachers
are forced to concentrate on measuring with paper clips and sliding shapes to
make different shapes. COME ON!!! These kids need to be solid in their basic
math facts. Individual needs are not taken in consideration because we must keep
moving with the curriculum. Many children are being left behind!! Cecil County
teachers are no longer teachers - we are robots who are not allowed to use our
God-given talents because everything is dictated to us.
-----------------------
June 9, 2007
As a CCPS employee and parent of two elementary school children in CCPS, I found
the video attached very informative. I found myself this year struggling to help
my 4th grader with his math homework. It just did not make sense to me. He would
become frustrated with me when I tried to help him with the way I was taught.
Children should be able to do any math problem without a calculator. I have seen
first hand the dependence students have with calculators on state and national
standardized tests. CCPS is proud of SAT and AP scores, which have improved,
however, the PSAT scores that all 10th graders take show the real story.
Students who we expect to do well...do well. A majority of students, especially
in the two math sections, are far below the national average compared to other
10th graders nationwide. College bound students take AP classes and SAT tests.
These students usually comprise the top 25% of the class. I am worried about the
other 75%. These 75% score very low on the PSAT's ( I have seen these scores
first hand). These 75% usually never take an AP class or an SAT test. Many of
this 75% go to Cecil Community College. (SAT's are not needed for entry) These
students do so poorly on the CCC skills assessment that they have to take
developmental courses prior to credit bearing classes. ( I have seen that data
as well)
-----------------------
June 9, 2007
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Please let me forward it by
saying Mrs. Wensell is a dedicated person, but whose hands may be tied. I wonder
if she so fully supports the Everyday Math program because she feels she has to
do so to keep her position. The county elementary EM program is a spiraling
curriculum, supplemented by county-made lessons and assessments. My question has
always been - Why assess mastery at the end of each unit in a spiraling
curriculum that doesn't provide enough practice time for young children? The
unit assessments serve a purpose for the district - scores. For the children, it
offers a sense of failure, even if they pass the assessment. Recently, one of my
first grade students made 4 minor errors on an assessment and ended up with a
score of around 68% on his assessment. He was devastated. What message are we
sending these children? Telling them not to worry, they will learn more about it
later is not true. The concept returns, in more detail. Without proper time to
practice the concept when it is first introduced, the children do not truly
learn the concept. In elementary school, we have children who frequently miss
school due to ear infections, strep, etc. With the current math program, these
children miss a lot of math instruction - the program moves quickly, and if you
are not there, you have missed major concepts. Trying to get the lessons to the
children when they return is very difficult in the lower grades -- our
curriculum is jam-packed, and there is no down-time in which to go back and
teach new concepts. When I have done so, I have to alter the plans for the day
so that the other students practice a skill, rather than learning the new one. I
am consistently late turning in my unit scores because of this. I don't mind
turning the scores in late, but the big question is - Why is there so much to
throw at the children. Too much information, too little time to practice and
learn. I am often asked by parents if their children learned a concept they see
on the test - there is so little time spent on each one. PLEASE continue your
fight to get a new math program.
-----------------------
June 8, 2007
I am a CCPS teacher and have approached the math leadership on numerous
occasions regarding the Integrated Math Curriculum and have advocated change
since the 2002-03 school year. My concerns have been dismissed and ignored. I
know of another teacher at a different high school who is National Board
Certified who has been vocal about the many problems with the Integrated,
Connected, and Everyday Math Curriculums and they won't even give him an
audience. But it is good that the door has now been opened for a discussion of
these issues. We as teachers want what is best for our students. Unfortunately
the math leadership takes any suggestions and personal criticisms when nothing
could be farther from the truth
-----------------------
June 8, 2007
The CCPS Math coordinator has not listed to the teachers for years, who have
known that the math curriculum from K through Algebra 2 must be changed. Maybe
she will listen to the community
-----------------------
June 8, 2007
Here are some more problems with the curriculum and math leadership: 1) Each day
is scripted. There is no room for reteaching or differentiation. This makes it
real hard for new teachers. 2) The assessments contain questions that come out
of the blue. For example, in a unit on systems of equations, there are questions
about sine and cosine. Why? 3) There is no rhyme or reason to the order of
topics. To give an English class analogy: Monday we read a Shakespeare sonnet,
Tuesday we discuss Moby Dick chapter 5 because we read chapters 1-4 in other
courses, and Wednesday we'll have a quiz on the Sonnet, Moby Dick, and Haiku
since we covered Haiku 1 day 3 months ago.
-----------------------
June 7, 2007
We have good mathbooks in our building. They are old, but good. I think the
middle school math is not helping the students. The really sad fact is that if I
say something as a teacher about the math we are using, my ability to teach is
questioned. I love this site, and I hope to help change the math in ccps, and
help our students
-------------------------
7 June 07
It is so nice to finally have someone willing to stand up and bring this math
issue to the forefront. We have been dealing with this problem for years. The
two people that piloted and wanted the Everyday Math program don't even use it
now. Mrs. Wensell and the people at the Board of Education have been trying to
fix Everyday Math ever since its inception. We have gone to professional days or
afternoons to rewrite the activities in the book to help it along. We had to
write some of these lessons in 5 to 10 minutes. Summer workshops have been held
to rewrite or supplement Everyday Math lessons. Then they tried to have teachers
teach a whole group and then three math groups in a matter of 60 minutes. This
entails helping some students with information that is very difficult while
others play math games without guidance. Almost every year they have hired
people to write tests for the math curriculum which involves the Voluntary State
Curriculum while trying to incorporate the Everyday Math. Oh, let us not forget
the Cecil County math curriculum. The people who are writing these tests are not
trained in assessment writing. The scoring guide is not weighted appropriately
and is filled with errors. Yes, we are encouraged to respond to Mrs. Wensell,
but then that error is fixed and another one appears. So not only is the
Everyday Math curriculum poor, but the assessments that we receive many times do
not match the book or the Voluntary State Curriculum. Some summers there are
only one or two people making decisions or changes for the entire county. As
teachers we have not been allowed to be honest. When we have been, we have been
labeled as teachers who are unwilling to change. Some teachers were told by
their building administrators not to make comments about all of the Everyday
Math controversy. Why is Dr. Roberts afraid to allow an anonymous questionnaire
about the worthiness of Everyday Math? It would be great for teachers to finally
be allowed to speak the truth about a program that requires so much extra
planning. A good teacher spends an enormous amount of time supplementing this
program so that students can learn basic math so that they will have a good
foundation to build upon so that they will be ready for higher level thinking.
We are tired of teaching so many different curriculums; Everyday Math, Voluntary
State Curriculum and Cecil County Math. Why not invest in something that has all
of the needed components to address the Voluntary State Curriculum which at this
time is our driving force in curriculum writing. To whoever is responsible for
this action, thank you! I truly appreciate your tenacity and willingness to get
the truth. I hope that changes are made.
-------------------------
4 June 07
It is interesting that the textbook committee referred to the spiral curriculum,
the benchmark of Integrated, Everyday, and Connected Math, as the "death
spiral". Maybe changes are coming.
-------------------------
June 1, 2007
During the 2001-2002 school year, I approached my department chairperson and
Mrs. Wensell about the many shortcomings of the integrated curriculum. I was
told to wait until the students who were taking Connected Math and Everyday math
reached the high school, because then I would see the advantages to the system.
In the 02-03 school year, I continued to voice concerns, and was asked again to
wait. I mentioned that the county's own internal data revealed that the
Integrated Curriculum was not working, but again I was asked to wait and see.
During the 03-04 school year, I shared my concerns with other high school math
teachers, and I quickly realized that many of us had the same concerns about
Integrated Math, but even the large group of teachers could not even get a
discussion of the topic with our math supervisor. Even our data was ignored and
dismissed, which is roughly the same time that the final exam scores were thrown
out countywide since the final exam scores were awful. So in 04-05, I tried to
change the curriculum internally, but every suggestion I made was dismissed. I
was able to gain an audience at this time with Dr. Wheeler, who was the
Associate Superintendent at that time, and she listened to my concerns but was
unable to elicit change. Finally, in 05-06, I became more vocal in my opposition
to Integrated Math, and was practically run out of the county. Now here we are
in 06-07 and still using a flawed program with no end in sight.
-------------------------
June 1, 2007
I would like to say that the Trig, Precalculus, and Calculus curriculums are
good. These curriculums are based on traditional texts and curricula. However,
the teachers of these courses must spend too much time teaching things that
students are "expected" to know, but don't. The Everyday Math, Connected Math,
and Integrated Math do not prepare students for the higher level courses
-------------------------
June 1, 2007
I took the county's TNT Course recently, and we were asked to read "Who Moved my
Cheese?" (At least I think that was the title.) The book basically revolves
around the theme that change is inevitable and we as leaders must adapt to
change. So why won't the math leadership embrace change? Why won't they even
examine the possibility of change? Why is it that we are still using a
curriculum that has been dismissed in almost all other districts? In fact, the
math leadership seem to think that it is all about them and take it personally
when the curriculum is critiqued. It's about the students!
-------------------------
June 1, 2007
The CCPS Everyday math, Connected Math, and Integrated Math do not prepare our
students for college. For a bit of proof, look at the large number of CCPS
graduates who must take remedial math courses at Cecil Community College. By the
college's own data, over 85% of CCPS graduates enrolled in CCC have only taken
courses through Algebra II, which is the county's last Integrated Math course.
One could easily infer that CCPS math students who never escape the Integrated
level at the high school are destined for remedial work at the collegiate level.
-------------------------