“Jump is a modest outfit…. it?s difficult for a small group to influence the debate. Big textbook companies and paid math consultants have a big say ? and big investments ? in what gets used. “

As to the question, “If the study comes back as positive as it appears it might, will direct instruction begin to creep back into OISE? “

It will come back positive, according to the lead researcher from Sick Kids. “In five months, researchers found substantial differences in learning. The Jump group achieved more than double the academic growth in core mathematical competencies evaluated using a well known set of standardized tests. (The study has not yet been published.) ?Kids have to make pretty substantial gains in order to see this kind of difference,? explained Tracy Solomon, a developmental psychologist in the Research Institute at the Hospital for Sick Children who is the study?s lead author. ?It?s impressive over a five-month period.?

When I read the NY Times article yesterday, my first thoughts were will OISE bury the study deep as they have done on reading research concerning Direct Instruction, and systematic explicit phonics, to protect the status-quo, self-serving best interests,profits and to serve the growing numbers of educrats to serve fewer students?

I would say a resounding yes, since the article does quote Dr. Solomon from Sick Kids. More than double the growth in core mathematical competencies.  In the Globe Campus article, in 2010, “This approach taps into what brain scientists have discovered about learning: Practice helps to consolidate memories, and mastering small steps or skills can lead to big jumps in performance. Experiments have also shown that confidence can affect ability, and we may learn more from getting answers right than from getting them wrong…...... But many in the education field remain unconvinced that JUMP offers a better way for children to learn math.

Diane Muckleston, curriculum co-ordinator at the York Region District School Board outside Toronto, says research shows that the best way to help kids understand a concept is to come up with a rich, conceptual problem that everyone in the class can help solve.

Last year, for example, she visited the class of a primary-school teacher who had noticed that all the kids were wearing odd socks. The teacher came up with the concept of a sock factory, and the kids all brought in socks. Each child was given a different number of socks and their task, as a group, was to find a strategy that would combine them.

?But it wasn’t, ?This is the way you would add the numbers,’? Ms. Muckleston says. ?There is a fundamental pedagogical difference in [Mr. Mighton’s] thinking on how a kid learns mathematics and what the worldwide research is about it.?

But Dr. Solomon disagrees. She says research does not support the idea that the ?discovery? approach to teaching math is the most effective. ?It is a mystery why we ever went down that route.?

There is whopping evidence that memories get laid down through meaningful practice, she says, and that has to come before putting that learning to novel and clever uses in problem solving.

It is like learning to speak a language or to play a musical instrument: ?The creativity comes once you have mastered the basics.?
http://www.globecampus.ca/in-the-news/article/program-could-help-kids-get-jump-start-in-math/

Dr. Solomon in a April 15, 2011 NP article.

““When we train teachers in Canada,” said Solomon, “we don’t ask for much in the way of qualifications for teaching math.”

And educators and those in educational research don’t communicate.

“All kinds of things have happened in recent years in terms of our knowledge of how people learn,” said Solomon. But “(teachers) are not aware of that evidence. They’re just not exposed to it.”

There is also a lot of politics in teaching math, said Solomon, and it hurts students. The prevailing view is that students should discover math by solving real problems. Mighton believes in discovery and solving problems, but he also believes in instruction, practice and mastering each component before progressing. So many educators dismiss JUMP. One school board in Ontario shut down a study on JUMP last year. Many of the authors of math texts also have key positions in the ministry or school boards, said Solomon. Consequently, “there’s not a lot of interest in changing.”

But this is a program delivering results.”

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/Anne+Jarvis+Math+success+stories/4620250/story.html#ixzz1KA8B2tag

If it was not for researchers like Solomon, my child would be sitting in a basic class, learning basket-weaving, under the current public education system structure. She would not be making plans to attend university to study forensic science under the previous and current crop of educrats, who do not believe in instruction, practice and mastery for students.

That question is funny!  I doubt it.  You can see by all educrats’ actions that they’re not there to educate our children—from refusing to make up lost time due to snow days and strikes to having students mark one anothers’ work so that teachers don’t even know if the kids are understanding the work; refusing to give back tests (no feedback for students); wanting to dumb down curricula and EQAO tests.  The list goes on and on.  I have not seen one thing which would indicate to me that educrats are interested in educating people.  Their agenda is entirely different.

Going back to my last post, and to add to what Bev had stated, it is the prevailing attitude by educrats especially those who are in charge of curriculum, employing the discovery approach.

“Diane Muckleston, curriculum co-ordinator at the York Region District School Board outside Toronto, says research shows that the best way to help kids understand a concept is to come up with a rich, conceptual problem that everyone in the class can help solve.

Last year, for example, she visited the class of a primary-school teacher who had noticed that all the kids were wearing odd socks. The teacher came up with the concept of a sock factory, and the kids all brought in socks. Each child was given a different number of socks and their task, as a group, was to find a strategy that would combine them.

?But it wasn?t, ?This is the way you would add the numbers,?? Ms. Muckleston says. ?There is a fundamental pedagogical difference in [Mr. Mighton?s] thinking on how a kid learns mathematics and what the worldwide research is about it.?

But Dr. Solomon disagrees. She says research does not support the idea that the ?discovery? approach to teaching math is the most effective. ?It is a mystery why we ever went down that route.?

Muckleston, is typical of another brand of educrats to protect their money-making profits, on the taxpayers’ dime.  Coaching For Math Gains, is one of the many projects pushing the discovery approach.
http://www.edugains.ca/resources/Coaching/2008-09CoachingforMathGAINS/AgendasforAction/AgendasforAction0809/YRDSB.pdf

I have had my fill on educrats like Muckleston, who constantly denied the science of learning, in favour of busy class projects like the sock factory, to teach math. But what is worse, they defend their methods in the face of the mountain of evidence showing that direct instruction, practice and mastery are the key components to high achievement in math.

I would still like to see the thousands of students who were exposed to Jump Math and other math instruction like Jump Math, to tell Muckleston and other like-minded educrats that they are wrong. It sure would be fun to watch, a teenager like my child, show Muckleston educrats how wrong they are. Creativity comes after mastery, and it sure shows in my child’s math work.

A typical sample of Muckleston and other educrats to defend their approach.

“In the York Region DSB, we have a system focus on literacy that includes mathematical literacy. We understand the importance of believing that all students can achieve high standards, given sufficient time and support (Cr?vola, 1999).

The goal of mathematical literacy for all requires that teachers provide focused instruction that is both data driven and research based. Current research supports the use of strategies that develop students’ understanding of foundational concepts through problem solving (Ministry of Education, 2006).

High-yield strategies such as the use of context problems or strings of related number problems (Frosnot, 2001) easily provide for differentiation through their multiple entry points. The point at which the student enters the problem provides data to help determine the instructional pathway.

Based on continuing research into mathematics education and the program directions set out by the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, it is imperative that educators and parents understand that no one text or resource will ever meet the needs of all students. Approaches being highlighted should be research-based and pedagogically sound.”
http://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca/september_2007/letters.asp

Edubabble at its best, co-opting words such as research-based and pedagogically sound, to make their theories sound good to the ears of the readers, without the bother of going to the end results, the stats. York Region School Board is doing no better than the neighbouring boards in math achievement. Producing the same low achievement to the point, where failure begets another failure forcing high schools to dumb down the math courses.

The next link is a typical math conference, conducted on the taxpayers dime. Muckleston and other educrats, along with the big guys of publishers pushing their questionable theories and products. I say typical because they spend more time on sight-seeing, than attending the lectures and seminars.  Not one session on the new advancements in cognitive science, and certainly no discussion on Jump Math. Just the typical edubabble of nonsense.
http://oame.on.ca/mcis/pdfs/oame2010 program.pdf

Well done Nancy!  I’d love to know the backgrounds of these so-called experts who are pushing this nonsense, because I don’t believe that anyone who has a sound background in math (i.e.: B Sc in math) would be advocating this. 
Thank goodness we have the Khan Academy; Jump Math; and the Singapore math curricula available for kids.  All parents have to do with these resources is get the kids to memorize their times tables and addition and subtraction—the rest through these three resources (and I’m sure there are many more) is presented in an orderly, logical fashion.  Sadly, poorer children may not get these resources. 
I have a question:  if math is all about learning and discovering, then why are so many teachers who teach the math curricula deficient in math?  Can’t they do what they expect their students to do—even when they’re at it year after year? hmmm.

Bev, here is the so-called qualifications of Muckleston.

“DEGREES
Bachelor of Arts, York University, Ontario 1975
Bachelor of Education, Ontario Teacher Education College 1975

PROGRAM OF TEACHER EDUCATION
Professional education program completed in Ontario, Ontario Teacher Education College, Toronto, Ontario 1975

BASIC QUALIFICATIONS
Primary, Junior & Intermediate Divisions June 1975

ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Music - Vocal (Primary/Junior), Part 1 August 1976
Primary Education, Part 1 June 1987
Primary Education, Part 2 July 1987
Primary Education, Specialist August 1987
Reading, Part 1 August 1988
Childhood Education July 1990
Associate Teacher June 1992
Reading, Part 2 August 1995
Reading, Specialist August 1996
Principal’s Qualification Program, Part 1 November 2007
Principal’s Qualification Program, Part 2 May 2008 “
http://www.oct.ca/PublicRegister/memberDetails.aspx?memberID=145086

Not math, yet she is a math program coordinator for the York Board.  The trouble I have had over the years trying to make changes and to advocate for my child, was dealing with the low-level educrats and their lack of knowledge and expertise in their job. In this case, Muckleston is directing math curriculum, who does not have any post secondary math under her belt,  She would have a trying experience with me, trying to defend her pseudo-theories in the light of the real science. 

At these conferences, parents and teachers who are very concern should show up, and start to question the qualifications of educrats pushing their theories and products. One thing they hate, someone questioning their qualifications and expertise. And yet the same educrats, do it everyday to parents, and others such as Mighton because we are not certified educators.

Thanks Nancy.  Again, the emporer has no clothes!The government is notorious for putting people into positions that they have no qualifications for.  Educrats’ focus is not on educating our children—it’s all about patting one another on the back.

Here is another angle that drives the educrats to armed themselves with taxpayers monies to fight parents in court, and all done in the name of protecting their turf, their curriculum, and instruction methods.

“The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked the Obama administration for its views on whether a parent may bring a negligence claim against a school district that allegedly failed to identify a high school student’s disabilities.

The justices asked the U.S. solicitor general’s office to weigh in on the issue raised under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

The case involves an appeal filed by the Compton, Calif., school district of two lower court rulings that the mother had a valid legal claim under the IDEA that the district had failed to identify her daughter’s disabilities.

According to court papers, when the student was in 10th grade, her teachers became concerned that her work was “gibberish and incomprehensible” and that she had failed every class. The school district referred the girl to a mental health counselor, who recommended that the student be evaluated for learning disabilities. The district did not follow the recommendation, and it promoted the girl to the 11th grade.

The mother later made a request for an individualized education program for her daughter, and the district determined that the girl was eligible for special education services for a learning disability.

The mother brought an administrative claim under the IDEA, arguing that the school district failed under the law’s “child find” requirement to identify the girl’s disabilities sooner. That requirement obliges states to ensure that all children with disabilities who are in need of special education services are identified, located, and evaluated.”
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2011/04/justices_seek_us_views_on_spec.html

The top level educrats in Canada must be as antsy as their American counterparts, because if it goes through, American parents will be able to sue school districts on the basis of education malpractice. And there will be thousands and thousand of parents lining up to sue on the behalf of their children. Curriculum and instruction methods will be brought up as the main contributing factors making their learning disorders much harder to fixed in the first place.

If the Supreme Court rules on the side of the parents, it will force wholesale changes to curriculum and instruction methods for all children, if they want to keep their precious social justice and equity theories in place. Jump Math, creates a clear playing field and so unlike the math curriculum of today and Muckleston’s pseudo-math theories.

The above is something else that will be interesting to watch.
Also, from Muckleston’s background—no math, I wonder how proficient she is in the subject, so how did she come up with her theories on teaching a subject she may know almost nothing about.