The public buys this educrat nonsense?  Why does the public not challenge the educrats’ implication that parents can better teach children to read and learn basic number facts than the so-called professionals?  What are the teachers and numerous bureaucrats there to do, if not teach?  Why is our education bill so high for taxpayers if these people are unable to do the job they’re hired to do?  Lastly, why do they say they’re so specialized; yet they’ll tell you that untrained parents are the only ones who can achieve any kind of success teaching the basics?  I’ve always seen and heard huge contradictions when dealing with educrats, but this one is unbelievable.  sigh…

Both Malkin and Bev brought up valid points that I can confirmed on personal experiences that my youngest child experienced, as she entered the formal public education system.

My youngest as with my other children all had excellent math cognition ability, My youngest it was a strength despite the language delay. My youngest counted in threes, sixes,and twelves at the age of 2 and 1/2 years old. She sorted all her crayons, toys, books in like fashioned. She was adding and subtracting mentally before she could actually write the numbers down on a sheet of paper. However, as my youngest child entered the formal education system, by the end of grade one - that wonderful strength that the former health professionals who was trying to figure out why she was not speaking had high praise for, had disappeared by the end of grade 1.

So my youngest child became another causality of having low levels of numeracy sense. A causality based on the math instruction, curriculum and the pedagogical practices. As Bev questions, “Lastly, why do they say they’re so specialized; yet they’ll tell you that untrained parents are the only ones who can achieve any kind of success teaching the basics?” I asked that question way back in 2001, and the response from the education established was in 2 parts - 1. My child was a slow learner. Translation - too dumb for math. 2. There is not much the classroom teacher can do, when it is a problem rests in my child, who was not born with good number sense. Translation - the fault lies with the child and the parents, and not the math instruction, the curriculum and pedagogical practices.

A large majority of children are written off by the end of grade 3 in the public education system,  as never will have the ability to developed good number sense, that is crucial to understand advance mathematics such as squared numbers and basic algebra. As such, due to the very nature of the instruction and pedagogical practices pertaining to math, will never developed math fluency and deep understanding of relationships between numbers and real world applications.

One of the major consequences besides the dismal math achievement outcomes, is that remediation and class instruction becomes a series of the dumb-down approaches. The reason is the pedagogical approaches of constructivism and belief systems of educators that harms the cognitive processes of children. Only the children with near-perfect cognitive processes will do well in a constructivist classroom, and the vast majority will be struggling to understand. Learning knowledge becomes a difficult task, and more so in a typical math class.

A typical education paper - ” Most mathematics educators agree that developing number sense is important, yet there is no single definition that is unanimously accepted. Number sense is highly personalized and thought to develop gradually. It includes self-regulation, an ability to make connections in number patterns, and an intuition regarding numbers. Number sense “refers to a person’s general understanding of number and operations along with the ability and inclination to use this understanding in flexible ways to make mathematical judgments and to develop useful strategies for handling numbers and operations” (McIntosh et al., p. 3).”
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2204/Mathematics-Learning-NUMBER-SENSE.html

In the world of public education, my youngest child would be sitting in a grade 12 basic math class, along with her counterparts. Its a good thing, that I took matters into my own hands, and my child in reality is sitting in a grade 12 advanced math class and calculus class.

To understand what math cognition really is, below is an article from LD Online - Imagery: The Sensory-Cognitive Connection for Math
http://www.ldonline.org/article/5647/

And you won’t find it anywhere in the public education system, except in the cognitive science field. A place where the public educators fear to tread, except to raid it on occasion by cherry picking the cognitive science that is made to fit their 19th century pedagogy at the expense of all children and their cognitive development.

And why indeed is the public falling for this educrat nonsense based on ideologies and outdated beliefs of learning, rather than the science of learning?

Interesting that you drew those suggestions out of the article Malkin. To me, the article is not laying the blame on parents or teachers. Instead, I read it to mean that we’re learning a whole lot more about how kids learn math, and that nurturing the use of math language from an early age helps.

Just like reading, early exposure helps—likely more than we originally thought.

Good opportunities for both parents and educators to follow this research closely.

But isn’t that what parents will do with their young children?  Do parents really need to be told what to do by the so-called professionals in the education field?

“Don’t teach your toddler to count solely by reciting numbers. Attach numbers to a noun — “Here are five crayons: One crayon, two crayons…” or say “I need to buy two yogurts” as you pick them from the store shelf — so they’ll absorb the quantity concept.

—Talk about distance: How many steps to your ball? The swing is farther away; it takes more steps.

—Describe shapes: The ellipse is round like a circle but flatter.”

Its common sense, that parents are the first teachers for their children. What is not common sense is coming from the educators. Would any parent other then a scientist who is a stickler for the correct vocabulary would described a oval shape as an ellipse? I know I wouldn’t - and it would be called an oval, like most parents would.  In the LD article - “Mathematics is the essence of cognition. It is thinking (dual coding) with numbers, imagery and language; reading/spelling is thinking with letters, imagery and language. Both processes, often mirror images of each other, require the integration of language and imagery to understand the fundamentals and then apply them. Dual coding in math, just as in reading, requires two aspects of imagery: symbol/numeral imagery (parts/details) and concept imagery (whole/gestalt).”
http://www.ldonline.org/article/5647/

That said - the public education system does a very poor job in two aspects of primary math instruction. And that is parts/details and the whole/gestalt. It shows clearly in the math curriculum, that should really be given an early execution - a death sentence Teaching the whole, and expecting the children to figure out on their own, the parts.

And the education system wonders why kids hate math….........and in the far off future there is parents paying for private tutor lessons, and if not that paying for math software and other math material to be used at home. Just asked the parents who has kids in the advanced math and math classes in the high school senior grades.

It certainly does help when kids are exposed to early learning to advance and prepared kids to learning in a school setting. Likewise, as a parent I dutifully carried out my end, and for my youngest she had two nursery schools, and a host of other things that even my adult children became jealous.

So by the end of grade 1, I was told my kid was slow, and will never be academic material. Oh yes, I did give the evidence that my youngest was actually pretty bright and advance in some areas compared to her counterparts. I than became the parent that lies and prone to exaggeration because I would not accept the educator with the PHD and his pronouncement of my child’s academic ability.

What is more important than what parent do or don’t do for their children, is what happens within the school walls. The article sets up the conditions to lay the blame unto the parents and their children in the future starting in grade 1. Due to the math instruction, the curriculum and the pedagogy practices, the public education stakeholder needs a handy scapegoat when the fallout begins starting in grade 1. After all, I was also being accused by the educrats with PHDs, that it was all my fault for not reading to my child, and was the reason for her reading difficulties.

Its to condition parents early on by a public education system to accept the responsibility of their children’s academic failings wholly, and without questioning the school variables of instruction, curriculum and pedagogy. The three no-nos that parents should not do in a school, but when they do - the collective education system moves to shut down the parents.

And just maybe, parents like myself would find it unnecessary and fight for the next 12 years for corrective remediation in reading in a public education system that is still living with 19th century belief systems that have been proven wrong by the science. In a system that is abiding by the science, my child would have been picked by the age of 5 as one who would have learning difficulties in reading, and by extension writing difficulties and be identified as having dyslexia. In the world outside of the public school, a child in 2013, can now be identified as having dyslexia as early as two years old. Of course one can go on to read and view the Moore case at the Supreme Court of Canada site. It well worth watching and reading, what happens to kids with the less than perfect cognitive processes, and what the public education system will do to protect themselves from being held accountable for their education and instructional practices.

Obsolescence, Malpractice Or Exit — What Shall It Be?

Those who profess to be “professionals” in education and are paid to just “cover the material” are no more than pretenders at the game — easily replaceable by robots.

That is why there is growing anxiety about needing to know if money is well-spent on a mass system of public education.  Parents, in particular, are increasingly becoming worried about their individual children in a system seemingly oblivious of individual attributes and needs of students.

On top of these concerns, parents are told — way too often in more ways than one — to NOT, I repeat, to NOT teach their children to read, because the teachers will have to UNTEACH them.  Also, parents I know of are told NOT, I repeat, told NOT to help their children with math homework because their “old” methods are now replaced with new math and to do so is to confuse students.

What’s happening in the field of public education?

1.  Obsolescence:  More people are concluding that the system is obsolete.  Needs to be remodeled — replaced.  Khan academy type of proposals.  See this article from Forbes: Rethinking Education: Why Our Education System Is Ripe For Disruption http://www.forbes.com/sites/naveenjain/2013/03/24/disrupting-education/

2.  Education Malpractice:  There really should be some agency or foundation that would take on wholesale education malpractice suits.  The malpractices identified 30 years ago continue to this day — advancing students who have not learned (or were never taught) the prerequisites; assigning meaningless homework; etc. The book “Educators on Trial” 1981 by James Leary should have been a wakeup call and needs study again.  Legal action and heavy monetary costs for malpractice and negligence may be the only way for statutory authorities to become responsive to expectations.

3.  Exit:  The model of government as producer of wholesale, monopoly education is proving a millstone on society.  The call for more exit options and innovative and specialized education services could be easily served through vouchers, charters, tuition tax credits or other funding mechanisms.

Thanks for the article reference, Tunya. This resonates with many of the points that those longing for systemic change having been making for the past several years.

Now there’s a conversation I would love to have!

In the early years - As a parent I was given conflicting messages. Not to teach reading at home, because they would have to unteach it. And at other times, I was encouraged to reteach at home. In fact, it was just last year, parents at the local elementary school were told not to teach math at home.

Tunya’s link provides a quote - “When was the last time your child asked for help with a video game? Probably never, but so many kids are struggling with basic algebra and chemistry every day. Why is it that our young kids all across America can solve the most complex problems in a video game involving executive decision making and analytical thinking, yet we accept the fact that they can’t add or read?”

A recent example that the public education system is obsolete - In the 2013 NL budget, all adult basic education (a high school equivalency) will now be done by private education facilities. So, I went in search of the private colleges in NL to find out the tuition fees, and of course on all the private colleges’ web sites, a notice to find out the costs of tuition one must phone the private college. As I was exploring each private college web site, they also had a separate program for literacy remediation for adults. At one private college, I was floored to see the Susan Barton reading program, for people with identified learning disabilities. It is targeted for the young adults just leaving the public education system after 12 years.

I had two thoughts running through my head. The first, do students with reading difficulties have to wait until they become young adults to obtain corrective reading remediation at their expense? The second thought, why isn’t Susan Barton reading program and a host of other proven reading programs for students with a reading disorder are not standard education services in today’s public education system across Canada?

In the article - ” We are now living in a fast paced technological era where every skill that we teach our children becomes obsolete in the 10 to 15 years due to exponentially growing technological advances. Meanwhile, new categories of jobs are being created because of these technological advances. It’s hard to imagine that half of the jobs that exist today didn’t exist 25 years ago.”

What has not change and never will, is a solid foundation in reading, writing and numeracy skills. And yet, the public education system refuses to change the teaching methodologies and practices that follows the 21st century science in the learning and cognitive and learning science fields.

Tunya writes - “Parents, in particular, are increasingly becoming worried about their individual children in a system seemingly oblivious of individual attributes and needs of students.”

In the end, the parents end up footing the bill for their adult children because they can’t add or read very well. And worse yet, one provincial education system has decided that the adult basic education program will no longer be funded by the education funding pot, and be moved to the private sector. A provincial education system writing off a segment of society that started in the early years of the public education system due to their 19th century teaching methodologies.

Crazy eh?

Interesting article although nothing new or beyond common sense.

The discussion is even more interesting.

I found myself agreeing both with Stephen and with Bev.

Yes, as Stephen stated the article is about how nurturing use of math in every day life helps a lot.

On the other hand the the examples are about the parents doing that at home and at a young age before grade 1.
In addition, the article also makes the case that the gap in math skills at the beginning of grade 1 can never be closed.
Because of that I fully agree with Bev that
a) The idea that the article seems to imply has been scientificall proven that the gap at the beginning of grade1 cannot be narrowed or closed in most cases is incorrect factually (see Asian countries and North America’s own Engelmann)
b) That this idea will be used by teachers and schools in North America as an excuse for low achievement.

While it is true that in grade1 there are differences in children’s skills have due to socioeconomical and mindset differences among their parents the mission of any school and even more so of a public school is to narrow or close up these differences.

If closing the gap is not considered achievable from the start then we have a self-fulfilling profecy that right from the start guarantees that the skill differences when starting school remain or get bigger during school.

As a consequence school becomes at best just an environment to develop social skills and at worst a glorified holding pen to allow the parents to go to work. Such schools do not serve the public good and we should not fund them publicly.

I am continuously appaled at the self-serving belief - prevalent not only among teachers but among parents as well - that all you need to do is to immerse the child in something and the child will magically learn or not learn based on his own innate tendencies and there’s nothing more anybody can do.