Comments on: Expect To See A Lot More Of This

By: Shari

Shari — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 01:18:16 +0000

I stand corrected. I thought the EDC had a middle school math program, too, but now I’m not finding it. I see they have some projects in the works and some professional development pieces, but not a full middle s hook program.

By: Bowen Kerins

Bowen Kerins — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:51:56 +0000

A correction: EDC did not develop the middle school program Shari mentions; there is no such thing as “CME2”. What you probably meant was “CMP2”, the Connected Math Program created and edited at Michigan State University:

http://connectedmath.msu.edu/

There’s definitely a lot in common between CMP2’s philosophy and CME’s. It’s a big reason Pearson decided to publish CME.

I remember reading the CCSS first draft “way back in aught 10” and hoping it would catch on. It’s less than two years later… seems like it has ;)

Anyway, more screenshots! I’ll see what I can track down.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:48:11 +0000

I would like to second Shari’s endorsement of the CME curriculum. Nice work Bowen!

By: Shari

Shari — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:00:30 +0000

The EDC developed the “habits of mind”. If you look carefully at the wording of the “habits of mind” and the “mathematical practices,” you’ll see some replication.

Of all of the texts available, it would seem any text developed in part by the EDC would be more closely aligned to the mathematical practices than any other text. But, @Bowen, I’m sure you are already aware of this.

For people looking for primary and middle school texts, the EDC developed Think Math (GK-5) and CME2 (middle school).

By: Bowen Kerins

Bowen Kerins — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 06:19:09 +0000

That skateboarding example always cracks me up. Later in the same chapter a seventh-degree polynomial is used to fit the speed of a swimmer.

The issue around the implementation of the practice standards is a tough one. I don’t know how to resolve it well, and it can definitely lead to some standoffs. Reading through a traditional text’s new Common Core version at a conference, I asked them to show me any example or problem where MP #8 (“generalize from repeated reasoning) was emphasized. They couldn’t, and only pointed to a statement in the prologue that said all eight practices were “woven into every lesson”. All eight practices in every lesson, it’s a miracle… Or not.

Your word “spirit” is well chosen. I think the authors of CCSS were generally careful to avoid prescribing specific teaching methods, but the overall philosophy comes through. If you have ideas about how to make it clear who is and isn’t actually aligned to the practices, I’d like to know because I’d like to be able to shout it louder than these “new” books!

By: mr bombastic

mr bombastic — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 02:00:53 +0000

@Bowen, You don’t think the Practice Standards are reflected in most textbooks, but some people do. Isn’t that an unresolvable conflict with such brief descriptions for the practice standards? Do you think maybe they were intentionally left so vague in order to avoid political fights?

I happen to agree with you that most texts do not follow the spirit of the practice standards, but I can’t really point to any verbage in the standards to support that belief. It seems like just about anything would meet the “letter of the law” as far as the standards go.

By: Jason Dyer

Jason Dyer — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:09:50 +0000

@Dan: That’s not only a contrived way to get a picture of a skateboarder in your book, but statistically dishonest.

Alas, the more honest applications I know of are less photogenic things, like the bending strength of wood.

By: Dan Meyer

Dan Meyer — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:54:10 +0000

@Jason, here's a link to number 55, the skateboarder modeling problem.

By: Bowen Kerins

Bowen Kerins — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:09:52 +0000

I don’t agree that the Mathematical Practices are already being used much in most current textbooks. The MPs are supposed to be themes that run throughout entire textbooks, growing year-to-year. If those things are happening, they need to be brought to the forefront. Having taught from some of these books and having read many others, my opinion is that this is not generally happening.

What I have seen is mostly a “throw the switch” mentality. In one well-known series, the “problem solving” label has been replaced by the “mathematical practices” label. Phil Daro (one of the lead authors of math CCSS) says that seeing specific problems labeled as the “mathematical practices problems” is an instant red flag that the curriculum does not properly value the MPs: it suggests the other problems don’t require any thinking!

I think that a lot of these textbooks will have to start from scratch to really build a program that honors the mathematical practices. It took our group (CME Project) five years to write a high school series with mathematical habits of mind as the organizing principle. We’ve been thrilled to see the increased focus nationally on mathematical thinking skills, and a large number of school systems have chosen to adopt our books this year because of our philosophical alignment with the mathematical practices.

Based on how long it took us, shouldn’t it take even longer to write a coherent, tested K-12 curriculum around Common Core? Instead we see these curricula “ready for Common Core” pushed out the door within six months. That’s just not possible.

In the long term, I hope more high-quality new curricula are written. It is possible, students deserve it, but it’s not going to happen overnight.

By: Shari

Shari — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:54:56 +0000

Bowen, as someone who has worked on textbooks, I, too, have found it frustrating to put the standards in the student book. They are really there for reviewers with the idea that reviewers look more closely at the student text than the teacher edition.

The CCSS didn’t prescribe an approach to teaching, other than to use the Mathematical Practices to allow for deeper learning. These Mathematical Practices were already being used (though, thinly veiled). So, to a textbook publisher, nothing has changed but the standard numbers. And, economically speaking, that’s all the textbook publishers could afford to change right now. Sales have dropped off significantly because schools just don’t have the money to buy new texts.

Once an assessment system is agreed upon, you’ll start to see more changes in textbooks, but, even then, the changes won’t be huge. You’ll just see test-prep materials and/or questions set up to look like what will be on the test.

If you want to see something new, you have to look at textbooks that aren’t from the major publishers. It’s the smaller publishers who will be willing to take a risk and make a change.