The University of Chicago’s Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education (the people who developed ‘Everyday Math’, another popular constructivist math curriculum like ‘Investigations’) has issued a statement on the recently released Common Core Standards for mathematics. They don’t like the new standards so much. The statement reads, in part:
We believe that the proposed CCS standards for mathematics in Grades K-6 would promote a back-to-basics curriculum that ignores the profound changes that have taken place in the last 50 years. CCS’s largely paper-and-pencil approach to mathematics in K-6 is obsolete.
We believe CCS’s K-6 mathematics standards have seven serious shortcomings:
1. An overemphasis on paper-and-pencil arithmetic.
2. Inadequate exposure to concepts of data and probability.
3. A disregard of existing and emerging technology.
4. An outmoded approach to geometry.
5. A neglect of applications of mathematics.
6. An interpretation of “focus” that ignores how people learn.
7. An overemphasis on teaching by telling.
These objections are open to interpretation, but I think it is fair to say that the implication is that Everyday Math doesn’t fit very well with these standards. It will be interesting for us in SCASD to see what TERC, the developers of Investigations, have to say about the Common Core Standards since it now appears that Pennsylvania is eager to adopt them. It would not surprise me if TERC raises objections similar to these, especially objections to “teaching by telling” or direct instruction, which is the opposite of the constructivist approach that Investigations and Everyday Math are based on.
It’s worth pointing out that critics of constructivist math have also criticized the Common Core Standards, but for very different reasons. Some in states like CA and MA that have strong standards already are worried that the new standards will be a step down. In Pennsylvania, we don’t have that particular problem.
We have TERC here in Bellingham, WA (and many surrounding towns). Washington State adopted standards that require some mastery – and it is hilarious to see how the districts have put together sequencing models which use TERC to try to teach to mastery of basic skills. Of course, it is ridiculous – as there is nothing in TERC that promotes mastery, but on paper – to the uninformed public, it looks like districts are teaching to the new standards.
I worked in the schools and just student taught in a TERC school. It is a nightmare. And most parents – even those who look at scope and sequence – have no idea that our schools are ignoring the standards in favor of TERC ideology.