What seems to be lost in the discussion regarding new vs. old ways of teaching math, is that proper math instruction has always had a very good balance of memory work and understanding.  The progressives always fail to mention that, and prefer to attack traditional methodology and simply being “drill and kill”.  That simply isn’t true.  Proper math instruction has ALWAYS included understanding right along with memory work.  Automaticity leads to understanding, not the other way around.

Barry Garelick is a math teacher and author and has written extensively on this topic

http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/traditional-math-the-exception-or-the-rule/

The only ones who can shift policy makers here, are the parents.  It was done in MB and AB only after intense public pressure was applied to both ed ministries.  It is, indeed, the only thing that will work.  Consider supporting Teresa’s math petition here,  https://www.change.org/p/honourable-liz-sandals-parents-would-like-to-see-changes-to-math-education-in-ontario-we-would-like-a-more-structured-system-and-a-solid-foundation-in-arithmetic-and-problem-solving

And find out more about proper math instruction, at http://www.wisemath.org  The .realities of discovery math has already failed countless generations of kids around the globe…we have the evidence, we know what works, best the educrats pay attention.

Thanks for the post Sarah!

I read the article to which you referred and I was trying to find the part that said that most math professors across Canada agreed that “discovery learning” was not working.  I found a reference to two professors but I’m not sure whether that constitutes a majority or not.

Graham Orpwood’s recent report on the numeracy gap in Ontario is being discussed at the economic club today in Toronto.

http://www.numeracygap.ca/assets/img/Closing_the_numeracy_gap_V4.pdf

I like the approach that he takes in the report and the call for a balance in teaching strategies.  He makes a good point by saying that’s it really doesn’t matter what the curriculum says, it’s really what happens on the ground in classrooms that matters.

Some other good distinctions and, As I see it, approaches to carrying on this conversation in productive and respectful ways.

None Dare Call It Scam — The Money Wasted In The Education Industry

Scam, ripoff, swindle, fraud, corruption — whatever — we (gullible, naïve, hoodwinked public) are being taken for a ride.  Do you suppose if I called the additional $60 million Ontario has just dedicated to the discredited “discovery” Math approach a SCAM I might be sued ?

Let’s look at this another way.  Maybe it’s not a scam at all.  Maybe it’s MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !  What if the poor Math achievement scores are INTENDED, and this $60 M is just to make sure NO CHILD IS LEFT BEHIND.  Each child MUST come to the solution that 2 + 2 = 5, AND SHOW YOUR WORK !

This is not so far-fetched!

Just this week in the US and going the rounds is an incredible expose that is either true statistical research or pure prank and hyperbole (or something in between). There are some very serious people whom I trust who are taking this thoughtfully (Thomas Sowell, Will Fitzhugh . . . ).  This site ZeroHedge.com is mostly about finance and trading and while some readers find the style conspiratorial others find it rather “sophisticated”.  I’ll pull out some quotes that are credible and I do this in support of my above statements about Math and my view that outcomes and future projected even poorer Math outcomes may very well be intentional.  This is about Reading but relevant to our Math discussion here.

“Department Of Education—Our Work Here Is Done

  http://www.zerohedge.com/print/528426

“Sources: National Institute for Literacy, National Center for Adult Literacy, The Literacy Company, U.S. Census Bureau.

“- Illiteracy has become such a serious problem in our country that 44 million adults are now unable to read a simple story to their children.

“- 3 out of 4 people on welfare can’t read.

“- 50% of the unemployed between the ages of 16 and 21 cannot read well enough to be considered functionally literate.

“- 3 out of 5 people in American prisons can’t read.

“- To determine how many prison beds will be needed in future years, some states actually base part of their projection on how well current elementary students are performing on reading tests.

“All that’s needed now is a “Mission Accomplished” banner and this is yet another perfect example of the failure of government intervention.”

Thanks for clarifying Sarah’s article Stephen.  Yes, there were only 2 math professors who were interviewed for this specific article, however here’s who “those 2” represent, when speaking on behalf of math professors, and other educators:

Over 4,000 teachers and professors in AB; several thousand more in Ontario, hundreds, if not a thousand or so in BC, and thousands more from Manitoba and the rest of the country.  And these are only those teachers, and/or professors, who have signed to support the advocacy behind one, or more math petitions in Canada.  There are thousands upon thousands more who have signed their support to what Dr. Craigen and Dr. Stokke are saying - over 24,000 signatories the last I checked.

I’d be curious to know what the real number, you know, the silent majority, truly represents.  Based on the 1200 or so comments being given to this single article - many of which were overwhelmingly supportive, I’d say we’d be flummoxed as to what the true figure really might be.

And I would also take issue with Sarah’s comments as well.  When speaking with MATH professors in Canada, I have yet to meet, speak, or read about any of them, who might disagree with what Dr. Stokke, or Dr. Craigen have been saying.  I haven’t heard from any other professional mathematician that would disagree either.  Perhaps they’re just frustrated with the fallout of what discovery/inquiry strategies have done to kids, because they have now been dealing with poor math skills in the workplace for quite a while now.  It’s not just parents who are frustrated, employers, and professors are as well.  It’s why the CD Howe Report that Dr. Stokke wrote, is worth reading, because it illustrates where the problems are, and provides evidence in suggesting meaningful solutions…all of which are highlighted in the article

Stephen mentioned Graham Orpwood’s report and here’s a few other things that Graham said:

“While Orpwood opposes going back to the “old drill-and-kill” way of teaching such skills, he says it’s time the Ontario curriculum states clearly that elementary students should master basic math facts like multiplication tables, so no one doubts their importance.

Well, the Ontario ed ministry ONLY reinstated memorization of multiplication tables, AFTER pressure was applied to their ministry by Teresa Murray’s math petition and parental outrage became apparent.

“It’s a symbolic move; we don’t want students to go back to a time where you followed a bunch of (math) rules and didn’t have a clue why,” he said. “But certain skills are needed for understanding math, just like in language, you need to be able to spell.”

Right. We never taught math rules with understanding. Perhaps this is how the gov’t saves face, who knows.

And then he goes on to give the same tired argument that has been played like a violin in other jurisdictions both across North America, and internationally:

“People want to pinpoint so-called ‘discovery math’ as the problem, but it’s not,” said Orpwood. “One of the problems is the curriculum is too dense; there’s too much to cover and not enough time for students to make connections between the concepts. A lot of people say it’s a mile wide and an inch deep.”

http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2016/04/12/new-report-pitches-mandatory-math-test-as-part-of-education-overhaul.html

Sure.  He must be right and thousands of educators and parents must be wrong. 

If curricula guidelines aren’t important, then what is the point of having ed ministries implement them?  And if they are to be implemented, they need to be very clear, precise in terms of their significance, and give strong direction to teachers in determining how math should be taught effectively.

Reports are fine, I prefer evidence.  Along with common sense, and also a strong dose of effectiveness.

Taxpayers just saw $60m go down the toilet.  Why they aren’t storming the Ed Ministry in protest, is beyond me.  I’d be homeschooling for sure, if this is how I saw the ministry spend my $$ on the public education system.

Tunya, if you’re going to try to put the “zerohedge” article to work for you, then I would suggest that you need to apply it fairly and reasonably.

The criticism in the blog entry that you quote is being levelled against a federally-created department of education and the work that it has done—or not done to improve the system for those that need it the most. It is not about teaching approaches, strategies or even the attempts of state authorities to work in their own jurisdictions.

In Canada, resistance to a federal authority for education can be found dating back to the 1893. It has been an ongoing discussion but one that has never happened.

Second, the statistics are believable. Literacy is a huge problem in the US. The school-to-prison pipeline has been well-documented and should be of concern to anyone who cares about anyone other than themselves.

Functional literacy is an issue here in Canada as well, and it needs to be addressed.

But, I’m not sure that the lines you seem to be drawing between the ineffectiveness of the US Federal Department of Education and its approaches to reform are going to carry much weight in the current conversation.

A little spurious?

Graham Orpwood, despite his B.Sc and M.Sc, is trying to fence walk by calling for reforms, yet towing the party line in order to keep his (most likely) very well-paid, cushy job in the public sector. 
Surely to heavens he knows better than the silly doublespeak he uses.   
Because Orpwood doesn’t dare say what he really thinks, it shows how powerful the teachers’ unions are!
All public employees are gung-ho to maintain the status quo—it’s an easy life which they don’t want to give up for anyone!  Not even for children.

I concur with the accuracy and tenor of Tara’s assessment of the Orpwood Report. I read the report last night and was going to say about the same.

The real issue is the inability to lose the politically charged rhetoric and the historic polemic on this topic. Notwithstanding that over 30% of the primary student population is being left behind and setup for a lifetime of failure by the inability to put the historic nonsensical argument aside.  Replace the argument by reframing the discussion into an agreement to establising a quantifiable level of “automaticity” in math as the central goal of the program while rolling this principle into the EQAO assessments. Once this single,  principle is agreed upon, all the historic nonsense goes away.

Ditto for the certification of teachers to deliver the mathematics curriculum. Undoubtedly, and the report did not even go close to this subject, the bulk of the teachers are likely going to be very hard pressed to make the grade on their capability with math without their calculators.

This is a deplorable situation.  Any attempt to sugar coat the reality or make it politically palatable is just another nail in the future of the 30% plus who are now being failed by the system. Unfortunately, though the Orpwood report hits the nail, it does everything in its power to make the report as muffled as possible lest it draw unintended political flak.

I don’t disagree that there seems to be a line being walked to Orpwood’s report. On the other hand, however, this is what happens when you call for a sense of balance in the way that we approach mathematics education.

Even the report of the expert panel in Mathematics (2003) released in Ontario made it clear that balance between all forms of learning approaches was required.

But we may never get agreement here on the what constitutes an effective, high quality math program.

Two thoughts. First, the call for evidence-based practice and research is just as loud in the education community as it is here. Again, the expert panel included references to several pages worth of research. So my question, what counts as acceptable research? Does it matter where it is published? Does it matter that it leads to the conclusions that we would like to hear? (That’s a question for everyone, I believe)

Second, Frank’s desire to point to a central goal of math education is key. is it “automaticity”? Is that what we are going for, in the end?

If that is truly the goal of math education then you are likely right in wanting to eliminate the push for any use of “discovery” approaches. (I put the quotation marks around discovery because I’m not a huge fan of the term!)

http://nyti.ms/1hSBUUL

We need to keep pushing.
Discovery learning is a segue to enhanced learning and creativity after periods of mastery.
Step by step instruction for the teachers so they can teach their students.

Flawed pedagogy leads to poor results..which it has.
Teachers LOVE great results,that`s what the job is about!

Here are a few articles.

These are what I am using to back my claim that many people are not in favor of discovery based math as being the “means” to teach elementary level math. This is an issue across this entire country.

Discovery based math instruction, in my opinion,  is an ideology more than an actual working method. It is a social-engineering experiment gone wrong. Basic traditional methods need to be taught and mastered before kids can “discover”. 

Those who successfully use “discovery based” methods on their own, they usually have a different thought process than the cohort, and that’s why those methods work for them. Maybe we need some neuroscientists to explain how the brain learns before we give people free range over trying to challenge and change that. On top of that, when kids get frustrated, they aren’t only not learning math, they are learning to hate it.

This crisis needs to be dealt with, and regardless of each side’s ability to try and use confirmation biases to back their support for or against it, the RESULTS speak truth. The test scores are in, and the math is failing students and they are failing it.

No amount of money, or “re-education” of parents, teachers, and children who use practical “traditional methods” , will solves this. Sometimes when you try and re-invent the wheel, you get a big square that proves to be useless. Discovery-based math instruction is that useless square. In fact, without the knowledge of basic arithmetic, it’s a square without an axle. It’s getting us nowhere fast.

I’m not looking to debate this issue anymore, I am looking to get results. 

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/its-time-for-canadian-education-minsters-to-back-away-from-unproductive-discovery-math-fad?__lsa=2c97-49e3

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/Staples+Based+discovery+math+fiasco+Alberta+parents+should/10682078/story.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/too-much-math-education-is-based-on-pet-theories/article20369587/

http://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/how-to-teach-math/

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/philip-sullivan-discovery-learning-is-failing-our-children

Although Stephen Watt doesn’t insert himself into the conversation about “how”, this morning’s editorial in the Toronto Star certainly underlines the importance of keeping this conversation going in the public square. This just isn’t about our kids. This is about our communities and our world.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/04/14/we-need-to-overcome-our-national-math-phobia.html

The piece in the Star..
Spoken like a Discovery Math officianado…

All the language of concealment and justification to obfuscate the need for the foundational arithmetic skills is present.

‘All language of concealment and justification to obfuscate the need…’
Doesn’t it drive you nuts that our educrats are spending their time and energy on smoke and mirrors, rather than doing—what they know darned well—would be best for our children?  And yes it would also be best for our society, and our economy!
How can teachers stand to work with people (their union leaders and educrats alike) who are abandoned to any sort of principles, moral ethics, and decency?

Sarah said it best.  We don’t need to debate something when we know what the answer is.  Action is what we need, not more discussion. 

So why is it that the only ones who want to keep talking about it endlessly, are the educrats?  Meanwhile, kids keep getting frustrated, and parents keep doling out thousands of dollars a year in tutoring costs…just so their kids can learn their times tables. 

Perhaps a class action lawsuit is in order for educational malpractice, if the “educational professionals” refuse to adhere to the same strict guidelines that other professions must follow.  Especially when the subjects of these experimental strategies, are young children.