I don't DO math.

This article:

Is math ability genetic? Sure, to some degree. Terence Tao, UCLA’s famous virtuoso mathematician, publishes dozens of papers in top journals every year, and is sought out by researchers around the world to help with the hardest parts of their theories. Essentially none of us could ever be as good at math as Terence Tao, no matter how hard we tried or how well we were taught. But here’s the thing: We don’t have to! For high school math, inborn talent is just much less important than hard work, preparation, and self-confidence.

Confusing Stats

On the other blog, matharguments180.blogspot.com, there is exactly one post and a confusing number of pageviews:

Maybe this should be Day 2.

Yo, IT Department.

Just some notes for any IT personnel who may be reading:

1. If the accounts at a school aren't consistent -- the account names are different for network log on, powerschool log on, and email -- teachers are not going to be happy. Having mcurmudgeon as my powerschool account, curmudgeonm as my school computer account and math.curmudgeon@vtsch.net as my email is stupid. Do your job - fix that.
2. Changing the domain three times in one year is stupid. Expecting anyone to be happy when you're changing over all of the Google accounts and all of that stored class information from one domain to another should have happened over the summer, not a month into the year.
3. Training is not something you can throw together in two minutes. 



It's called a computer lab. Surely you've heard of that?

4. When conducting software training, it helps if the teachers can be logged in to a computer and can see what you're talking about. Waving your hands dramatically isn't a good way to convey the use of the four level tab and pull down menu structure.
5. Showing a random video to a roomful of teachers isn't software training.
6. Making a 100+ character link available on the school webpage works much better than attempting to relate it verbally to the group.
7. Your job is to make the technology work for the teachers and staff. Period. You have no other purpose.
8. My job is to teach. It does not include teaching myself how to use all this technology so that I can teach the rest of the faculty because you're an incompetent ass.

Have a nice day.

I'm tired of Twitter and Mindless Slogans.

For me, the basic problem with Twitter is the all-too-common resort to pithy statements that fit the character count but don't make for a coherent conversation.  I don't really care what's been said about the Seattle-San Francisco game; that's not important enough that sound-bites and sloganeering detracts from the conversation.

I'm talking about education reform ... and that is a big problem when discussed on Twitter. Changes to standards-based grading is a big discussion currently, as is standardized testing. These broadsides are fired without really discussing nuance, and for me, nuance is necessary.

You can't standardize learning nor will a standardized test ever be able to report it #abed #edchat #bced #mathchat #onted #ableg
— D Martin (@d_martin05) January 20, 2014

Here's the thing ... that's not an argument. It's a statement unbounded by fact or reason.

There are plenty of situations in which standardized tests are important, mostly in those situations where you have a need to compare against a national standard such as SAT, ACT, AP, IB, A-levels, GRE, Bar Exam, Civil Service, Driver's License, et.al.

DMartin agreed with my sarcastic comment to eliminate all of the above testing with "Yeah all mc parts. I agree!! Great idea!!"

So now we've gone from being anti-testing to being anti-MC, as if MC is somehow flawed.  Again. I have to ask, what leads anyone to think that MC can never be useful?

Why is this such a necessary part of my online life?  (The answer: it isn't.) What part of reasoned and thoughtful commentary includes these random unproven factoids and false dichotomies?

I'll leave with another ...

No cell phones in class b/c they cause distractions well let's remove pencils they cause spelling mistakes 

Instead of Mindless Dichotomy, how about just removing or eliminating the distraction part of the cellphone?

It's not Psuedocontext, it's just wrong.

Credit for the Bad parts, too.

There are many errors in the packaged, bought and paid for, courses from Florida Online. Unfortunately, the "developers" seem to have taken that "Beta" software approach ... if it isn't "Threatening-the-President-bad", then we won't bother fixing it.

Take this problem, from the Semester Exam:

Triangle ABC is congruent to triangle DEF. In triangle ABC, side AB measures 9, side BC measures 3x+18, and side CA measures 7. In triangle DEF, side DE measures 9, side EF measures 2x+26, and side FD measures 7. What equation would help you to solve for the side length of BC and EF? Explain your reasoning using complete sentences. (10 points)

At first blush, you say "They're congruent. BC is congruent to EF, so 2x+26=3x+18. Done."

What's the big deal?

Solve it.

Pretty easy ... x = 8.  So the sides of a triangle are 9, 7, and 42. Shit.

Any student who takes that obvious next step, and thinks for more than a second about a different topic just studied, i.e. comparing sides of a triangle and scissors theorem, is now convinced he's done something wrong.

It's not Psuedocontext, it's just wrong.

Source of Puzzles

A reader asked the other day where I got some of the puzzles I put on here. (Okay, she asked about two weeks ago, but I don't check the email all that often.)

Many of the roughly pre-calculus level math questions come from the UVM Math Contest. The website has only the last dozen years but I have the Notebook that goes back to the 70s.

Some of the Old-Timey one are from Sam Loyd's Puzzle Encyclopedia. You can find many of them on Wikipedia but I downloaded the images of the original book from mathpuzzle.com/loyd or get the whole thing as a zip file.

Technology - Interactive with what?

Technology is great.

Technology is the wave of the future.
Technology is a tool, allowing us to do more.
But so far, technology doesn't seem to be helping with the whole "Interaction" thing.

We'll have to figure this thing out before it kills us.

Every kid, staring at a screen.

More staring ... but at least he's not letting his head fall over.

Ah, now the teacher is watching them stare at screens. So META.

Staring in a circle.

Seriously, Rocketship Academy? This is Edutopia? This cubicle-farm with rows of cells?

We have to do better.

Putting everything on wheels and moving them around daily so the "teacher doesn't even know where to stand" isn't going to improve things much.

Yeah. They get enough at home. Mindlessly fiddling with crap isn't education.

See, lecture isn't a bad thing, in moderation, and when done well. But changing to Khan Academy lectures on the computer to replace the teacher's lectures in the classrooms isn't much of a fundamental shift.

Your guidance counselor spent untold time arranging the schedule so you and your unique teacher skill-set could be present at the same time as the students who needed that exact same set of knowledge and ability. Use the time. Be the teacher.

Leave the screen time for when you and the other kids aren't around each other. FLIPping the classroom is fine. Assigning the Khan for outside work is fine. Watching them day after day, huddled in their solitary confinement of a sensory-deprivation cubicle with walls to block sight of other students, headphones to block the sounds of other students, and a computer to overwhelm all thought ... isn't education and isn't an improvement.

No matter what Rocketship might say.

Maybe a quick glimpse of my road will calm us down so we can be objective about this.

Nice.

Smart is the New Invisible.

Actually, Smart kids have always been ignored in most schools.

Joanne Jacobs passes on this about Smart Kids:

Exceptionally smart students “are often invisible in the classroom, lacking the curricula, teacher input and external motivation to reach full potential,” writes Science Daily, citing a Vanderbilt study that followed gifted students for 30 years.  The 320 high-IQ students went on to become business leaders, software engineers, physicians, attorneys, and leaders in public policy, reports Who Rises to the Top?, published in Psychological Science.

Despite their remarkable success, researchers concluded that the profoundly gifted students had experienced roadblocks along the way that at times prevented them from achieving their full potential. Typical school settings were often unable to accommodate the rapid rate at which they learned and digested complex material. . . . This resulted in missed learning opportunities, frustration and underachievement, particularly for the exceptionally talented, the researchers suggest.

 This has been a constant irritant for me, for many years. We focus on the "bubble" kids, the weaker students who might pass if we give them a little more attention, and we tend to ignore the very weak as well  as the motivated and the smart.

"Heterogeneous classrooms" is the mantra where I teach, resulting in the kid up front twitching in boredom while the weaker students nod off, zone out, and then need the retakes and the constant nudge to hand in work, finish work, start work, etc.

Honors classes were replaced with CP "College Prep" because Everyone Must Go To College.


"That's the way those One-Room Schoolhouses did it. Why should we single out and spend more money on those kids? They'll be fine. They'll get their As."

It makes me cringe. Yes, they'll get a A, but the weaker kids don't get what they need, and neither do the strong. If you're going to have 5 sections of Algebra 2, why not simply let one of them be comprised of strong students?

Is it wrong of me to note that the people who ask why we should single out smart kids are invariably the parents of, or who were themselves, weak students?

Is it wrong of me to note that I haven't been able to get a whole class to participate in the Norwich Bridge Building Competition, only a few here and there?

"The smart kids can help the weaker kids ... collaboration is 21st Century teaching, you know, and it's the way the Real World works."

Let me channel my inner teenager ...

What if I don't want to do the teacher's job? What if I don't like many of my classmates. Why should I be forced to "teach" my classmates stuff they couldn't be bothered to learn in class the normal way?  Why should my grade depend on someone else's motivation?

Don't give me that "It's Real World" crap because I know that in the RealWorld, the dead-beats would be fired. No one pays people to sit around and wait for the one team member to do all the work. No one gets to wait until someone else is finished and lean over, "So, what did you get on number 1? And how about number 2?"

Tech's Magic Formula

Scott MacLeod:

Lack of vision + inadequate infrastructure + no training + poor implementation + insufficient ongoing support + refusal to change = tech success!
Does this sound like your wishful school or district? Hope not!

With our Highly Ineffective Principal (HIPster), we drew a Royal Flush on this one. It's all we can do to keep the one-to-one going despite the random flailings of the administration ... we being three of the teachers.

1. Lack of vision - If it hadn't been for one particular teacher getting the ball rolling and two other of us pushing, we'd still be without BYOD or any one-to-one program.
2. Inadequate infrastructure - don't get me started.
3. No training - Inservices revolve around the Curriculum Coordinator and his protocols for having discussions about "authentic" learning and teaching, protocols for having meetings, protocols for developing a single lesson plan that we'll test in a few months. That's right ... we're making a single lesson. Technology? Not so much.
4. Poor implementation - 
1. Kids are damaging their devices and no one has a plan for that. 
2. They don't charge the batteries ... "I can't hold class because they didn't bring it."
3. Leave it at home.
4. Some parents don't want their kids to have that much screen time and have asked that the kids NOT be given one.
5. Insufficient ongoing support - Crickets make more noise.
6. Refusal to change - This is the one part we do too much of. Change, change, change ... without ever looking back to see if the previous changes were effective or looking forward to see if we can predict and measure the effects of the present proposed change.

= tech success!

Return of the HIPster - Highly Ineffective Principal

HIPster tactic - pass the buck.

The Buck Stops over There.

At issue is a major schedule change involving midterm exams for all-year courses and final exams for block courses, the start of the new semester, the tech center, and other schools in the district that share our buses ... that will go into place NEXT WEEK!

HIP: "I won't make the decision without asking the faculty." Faculty are rather surprised by this - there has been no mention of this idea which originated a couple days ago. As you might imagine, opinions on this are all over the place. Finally, Random Teacher speaks up.
Random Teacher: "Just MAKE the decision, already."
HIP: "Let's see if we get consensus. All in favor?"
Maybe 1/4 of hands go up. Some discussion ensues.
HIP: "Okay, we seem to have a consensus in favor."
Random Teacher: "Wait, you never actually asked the others and most people are against it."
HIP: "All those in favor?" Again, the one-fourth.
HIP: "All those against?" Maybe one-fifth.
Random Teacher: "So just make the decision."
HIP: "I'll talk it over with the other principal and get back to you all in the morning."

Wow.

Online education isn't the Answer to all your imagined problems.

Online education and “gamification” will liberate public school students from the education bureaucracy and help homeschooling expand, he predicts. Young people seeking higher education will have low-cost alternatives to brick-and-mortar colleges. Glenn Reynolds, The Higher Education Bubble .

Homeschooling might expand, but the public school system isn't going to be damaged by online education and "gamification" unless we try to implement this farce ourselves.  The students will simply not cooperate with this blatant attempt to destroy their education, not because they care about the sanctity of public schooling but because they have shown again and again how little motivation they have for teaching themselves everything.

Sorry, Glenn. Hate to burst your bubble.

Useless Statistics about Cost.

In constant dollars, education spending rose from $1,214 per pupil in 1945 to nearly $10,500 in 2008, writes Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor who blogs as Instapundit.

The obvious point is that costs shouldn't be nearly so high and public education is broken.

The cost wouldn't be so high if:

• There were no special education students, and every age sat in the same room.
• The teachers were all underpaid women who could be used as semi-slave labor.
• 70% of the students never made it past 8th grade. 30% never made it at all.
• Health insurance was a matter of trading a chicken for a doctor's visit.
• The only technology was a slate blackboard and a woodstove.
• The parents got the kids to school (or they walked).
• There were minimal sports.
• There were only four courses: Reading/Writing, Arithmetic, a bit of Science, and maybe some History.
• Auto tech and wood tech was another name for the woodshed behind Old Man Jackson's House.
• Home Ec was held in your own house.

 But that doesn't make the cost differences look nearly so bad, does it?

"What's Your Plan For Making This Happen?"

Originally published here in July 2008. Not much has changed. We're still blindly forging on.

Alexander Russo asks "What's Your Plan For Making This Happen?"

The big problem in education reform right now isn't that there aren't any good ideas out there about what to do to make things better, but that no one has any real idea how to get them moving.

I think he's got it backwards. We have plenty of people willing to "make this happen" on a small scale. That's not difficult. The problem is that no one asks whether the change SHOULD happen. We go merrily on changing things every year, instituting reforms and rejiggering the educational process constantly.

We do "academic teams," "cross-curricular work," "differentiated instruction." We do "literacy across the curriculum" but not "math or science or history or art across the curriculum". We remove art and music to prepare for tests, add art and music to make a more well-rounded individual. We drop Hamlet and MacBeth and Mythology, or we don't. We put kids into cohorts of 20 for every course of their day. We STEP them up from the course they should be in to the course we'd like them in and then we place them in remediation because they need more help.

We've tried integrated math, sequential math, Integrated algebra, SIMMS, Univ. of Chicago vs Saxon. We try changing the order of the courses from "A1, Geom, A2" to "Geom, A1,A2" or "A1,A2,Geom."

Then, there's the grading system behind the report cards. We tried to change to a 1,2,3,4 grading system with rubrics and then found out that our parents hated the idea. They didn't want lengthy rubrics full of lists of standards and individual grades, nor did they like the idea that 1 was the lowest you could get. "If he does nothing, he shouldn't get points for it! Those averages mean nothing now!"

So we changed back.  For a while.
 
We've rewritten the curriculum at least seven times in my experience and done curriculum maps in four different systems.The only thing that seems to change is the logo: now it has "Building Standards-Compliant Systems" as a tagline. (Update: Looking at this now, I notice they've updated the logo to Common Core ... awesome. That will make the maps more relevant for today's learners).

We integrate technology before most teachers have a clue what they're doing with it. We lessen the need for brains and glorify button-pushing or we improve the educational methodologies by implementing technological pedagogy to teach the 21st century student.

We changed to 4x4 block scheduling, or modified block, or traditional 40, traditional 50, or 5x60s. We have single-sex or not, We try charter schools, magnet schools, engineering only school, KIPP schools.

For what? Are we sure any of it works?

No.

Have we looked at anything before and after each "revolution" to see if anything, in fact, did change? And for the better?

No.

We change everything in education without ever examining the results of the change. The most common "evidence" I have heard as justification is "My students seem to like it better. One kid said to me just this month, 'This is cool.'"

This is the only business that uses case-control as its top sampling method, if it uses any scientific studies at all. That's nuts.

Then the anti-public school activists chime in.

"If schools were free-market, competition-based entities that had to succeed or fail based on their own merits and their effectiveness for their customers, we would quickly zero in on the most effective teaching techniques. We would stick with what is proven, and what works, because whatever doesn't work would quickly be rejected by patrons and customers -- if only choice were an option."

I've talked about "choice" before. Choice is the parents using sketchy information to make dubious choices. The only saving grace is that they are at least invested in the children they're trying to place.

If there anything that the free-market teaches us, it should be that those who are trying to make a profit will lie or stretch the truth whenever they can. When the 13 billion dollar fine for improper practices is less than 1/4th of the money the company set aside to fight the charges, you should realize that the free-market is not the friend to the consumer. As a former private school admin, I can tell you that private schools are no different from Goldman-Sachs, except in size.

Their methods are traditional, not because it's best, but because it doesn't scare away the paying customers. Decisions are made for the benefit of the school, not for the benefit of the students. (Although if the students DO benefit, they'll take every opportunity to remind everyone how wonderful they were to make those "obvious" changes and portray themselves as better than the other private schools. The opinion that public schools were cesspits filled with poor people's stupid children went unsaid, but was understood by all because "Ivy-Covered Academy" was and is a naturally superior traditional school, with traditional values.).

But we're still dancing around the real problem.

Russo goes on

Take any number of interesting proposals -- national standards, weighted student funding, differential pay, community schools, inter-district choice, universal preschool -- and what you'll see are lots of arguments and policy specifics but no real plan for getting any of these things implemented in the real world. (You know, enacted into law. Paid for.)

We're doing research without knowing what we're looking for.

What would be nice is if you could first define the goal. Then define your method of measuring that goal. Finally, see if your changes progress you towards that goal. Then you can make all the changes you want.


Until we actually do some research with appropriate statistical methods, improving education in America will remain guess- and- check.

The problem is, of course, that most of your guesses are wrong and you're not checking. Worse than that, they're not your kids.