After 6 years of thousands of parents protesting Investigations math, ASD finally announced they were dropping the program. This period from 2001-2007 only ended when Orem city threatened to form their own school district and put a measure on the ballot to ask citizens if they wanted to pursue it. ASD administration was at that public meeting and announced they were dropping Investigations math and giving every school a choice between a traditional and “standards-based” (Investigations style) program.
What actually happened was the district pushed two standards-based programs (not the choice they promised) and ASD really pushed for Scott Foresman Addison-Wesley (SFAW). Why? Because SFAW has a direct integration plan with Investigations math and after all the schools were “taken off” Investigations math, the district gave all the elementary school teachers an Investigations math teacher guide the week before school and told them they could use whichever text they deemed useful to the students. As a result, many teachers chose to just use Investigations math.
When asked why some teachers are just using Investigations math, the district denies it and says they are using “balanced math.” Unfortunately, there is no curriculum called “balanced math” and when asked to define the balance they are at a loss.
In October 2007 State Superintendent Patti Harrington announced that Investigations math was being removed from the state approved list because it was an inadequate program. (Listen here)
The state office also condemned Connected math as inadequate (link).
Connected math is used in ASD from grades 6-9. The district has never attempted to balance this program even though federal studies from the What Works Clearinghouse have shown it to actually have a negative effect on children’s education (link).
ASD uses Integrated math in grades 10-12 which is also based on the constructivist approach and they haven’t done anything to bring balance to this program either.
Numerous things could be said about the detrimental effects of a fully constructivist program including the fact that NO studies have ever been shown to support this approach to teaching math (link).
In fact, after years of telling patrons that “all the studies show this is the best way to teach math,” I filed a GRAMA request with the district to get them to provide a copy of the studies they used to support the implementation of the program and they couldn’t produce a single study (link).
For an in-depth look at how the Department of Education has been deliberately dumbing down America through programs like these, please check out Charlotte Iserbyt’s free to download pdf book “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” where she identifies John Goodlad as “America’s premier change agent” for pushing us toward socialism.
Now we can see why the federal department of education completely ignored the results of Project Follow-Through (link), which was the largest education study ever performed in our country. It conclusively showed that direct instruction was a success, and constructivism was an utter failure. After the study, the socialists at the Dept. of Education determined that rather than promote what worked and how it could be improved, they would take the worst programs and toss billions of dollars into promoting them to schools. Look at the graph on that link and you’ll find the horrid effects of programs like whole language, discovery learning, and so called “developmentally appropriate practices.” (This information has all been provided to the ASD School Board and they have ignored it)
If you don’t know much about constructivism, you can check out this link which explains more about its background and the dangerous nature of the philosophy. In the words of Michael Matthews of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia,
“Given the influence of constructivism on education reform, teacher education, curriculum development and pedagogy, it is important to be clear about just what are, and are not, the epistemological commitments of constructivism. And what relationship these commitments have, if any, to classroom practice. The history of education is littered with ‘ideas that seemed good at the time’, but whose enactment caused educational and cultural havoc. Constructivism has all the earmarks of being such an idea.”
Now this school year, 2010-2011, parents are very disturbed to find that ASD can’t seem to shake their infatuation with Investigations math. Since this approach to math is promoted by John Goodlad and his organization, our district administration won’t get rid of it since 2 of our administrators have been given nationwide “AED Scholar” status by John Goodlad (Agenda for Education in a Democracy). In the entire country there are only 30 such scholars, but in Utah county, we have 4 of them. ASD Superintendent Vern Henshaw and ASD curriculum specialist Barry Graff directly influence things in this district. Two more are at the McKay School of Education at BYU with one being Steve Baugh, the former superintendent of ASD who first brought constructivist math to this district. ASD has continued to make teacher professional development 100% Investigations based and now they are pushing it back into the schools.
What is the problem with Investigations? Is it a perfect program? No! But it does have some GREAT interventions by incorporating the idea of play into our learning for our young students. After talking with my sister, she had listened to other parents in the district and was opposed to Investigations, but when she turned to me and asked about things she could do to help her struggling 2nd grader, I told her about some games she could play with her son to help with his automaticity with math facts. After she was sold on the games, I told her they came from the Investigations program. She has changed her oppinion. I do not believe that Investigations alone is a good program, but it is a good thing to incorporate with another program. However, I am convinced that it needs to be left up to the school’s community councils based on the parents desires. We should put aside the bashing of different programs and just come together to decide which things we need to help our students be successful then pick a program that best meets those needs.
Dr. Wilfred Schmid at Harvard said this about Investigations (TERC).
“A TERC teacher doesn’t explain, and a TERC teacher doesn’t teach! I don’t want to be misunderstood: group learning and discovery learning are parts of the tool chest of every accomplished teacher, but it is folly to turn these techniques into an ideology. If we mathematicians had to re-discover mathematics on our own, we would not get very far! And indeed, TERC does not get very far. By the end of fifth grade, TERC students have fallen roughly two years behind where they should be.”
Dr. James Milgram of Stanford calls TERC the 2nd worst math program of all time (Mathland was 1st).
Does TERC help some children? Sure, but so would a number of other programs (which also use manipulatives). It is stunning that ASD would implement this program, tell parents all the studies show it’s the best way to teach math, and then when parents ask for the studies the district can’t provide any (because there are none).
We can do far better.
Here’s a fantastic website which helps expose just how weak this program is.
http://www.stopterc.com/
Sarah –
I agree with you that some children do well with some aspects of the Investigations program. The problem is not with little amounts of this program being used, but with the use of it as a larger majority of the teaching, particuarly by teachers who are not trained in the appropriate use of the content as a supplement to traditional math teachings. Remember, this is a program that is NOT endorsed by the Utah State Board of Education Curriculum committee. It did not pass muster.
Another issue is unrelated to the math itself, but to the complete disregard for parental concerns when this was first implemented. When the district was using this as the sole math program, thousands of parents spoke out against it. As scores continued to drop and parents were even more frustrated with the District and the board who refused to listen to their concern, parents fled the district. 14 Charter schools popped up in the district within 11 years! The idea of a “split” of Orem City from the district gained momentum, and the only way this was quelled was by a promise from the school board to get rid of Investigations. And yet, it remains. And those teachers who use it more heavily than they should are doing a great disservice to the majority of students who will suffer later (like mine has) because of this inadequate program.
I am an elementary teacher with a math endorsement. When I was told to use what I thought was best, I took it literally. My lessons change from child to child and from class to class. My methods change from child to child and from class to class. Interventions on our grade level change each day. I use both programs as well as other resources I have and search out, sometimes even create, to meet the needs of the individuals I teach. It frustrates me that you make teachers sound like such sheep. We have studied and researched. I have not worked with a teacher that does not change their methods in order to meet the needs of students. I welcome you to come and ask me about how I teach each area of my curriculum. I seek to help students actually understand what they learn as well as be able to do it efficiently. Teachers should be offended by what you are saying, we are capable and can integrate programs.
Bobbi, thanks so much for writing. We love to hear from teachers. I’m sure parents appreciate what you and so many good teachers are doing to make sure our children learn math skills the best way they can. Thank you for challenging your students and making sure they learn with the methods that are best for them individually. We in no way want to lump all teachers into one category. Every class is different. But for a child, that one class and one teacher means the world. Thanks for all your hard work.
Hi Bobbi,
Thanks for writing. I am glad you have the freedom to teach what you want in your classroom. It was only a few years ago that you gained that ability. Did you know there were at least 4 schools in ASD where traditional math textbooks were confiscated to force teachers to switch to Investigations math? I have been contacted by numerous teachers who used to shut their doors to teach the times tables to children in their classrooms and I know personally one teacher who was let go from his job because he didn’t want to switch to Connected math from solid traditional math which he knew his students needed. In October 2005 I asked the school board for a statement to tell teachers they wouldn’t get in trouble for teaching the times tables to children because many of them were in fear of retaliation for going against the perceived district policy to not teach the times tables or long division. I was verbally rebuked in that meeting by the board and superintendent for suggesting any teacher was nervous about teaching the times tables. The next month, the board issued this statement for teachers addressing this need (http://www.oaknorton.com/ASD%20November%20Board%20Meeting%20Statement.doc). Three months later I got an email from a parent who had to show his child’s teacher this document on MY website because the teacher had never received word and did not think it safe to teach the times tables to her students. I have been fighting for the teachers and better curriculum for several years. I don’t see why any teacher should be offended at what I have posted if they have done their own research into Investigations math. If you have not looked into it, there is not one study that supports it’s philosophy or it’s effectiveness. I grew weary of hearing the district say “all the studies support these programs” and so a couple years ago I filed a GRAMA request to see their supporting studies. They had none (http://www.oaknorton.com/grama2.cfm). Investigations is a failed program. It was forcefully implemented and has done tremendous damage to our children. It’s no wonder UVU has a remedial math department and not just remedial math programs. Nearly 70% of incoming students there need remediation because they aren’t college ready.
Oak
Thank you Bobbi. I agree with you. I am also a teacher and am trying my best to meet the needs of my students. My job is to teach children, not to teach a math program. I pull resources from many different sources and change my instructional techniques when I feel that is necessary to help my students learn. I have worked in four different school districts over the course of my career. In each one, the district provided different programs or materials. I have never taken a math program or reading basal and taught from it exclusively. Furthermore I don’t feel like I need to close my door in order to teach times tables or anything else. None of the teachers I work with teach exclusively from one curriculum resource. It would be nice if others would recognize that we are professionals and are capable of making decisions regarding what will work for our particular group of students.