Objections to “Investigations”

For a while I have been meaning to write something that clarifies what some parents don’t like about “Investigations”.  One reason this is necessary is that for many people, “Investigations” is unfortunately synonymous with a conceptual approach to math.  If you think that it is important for children to understand math concepts, the thinking goes, “Investigations” is the program for you.

I’ve never met anyone who would say that a solid conceptual understanding of math is a bad thing, and “Investigations” does a good job of introducing some of those concepts.  What’s at issue in SCASD and districts across the country is not the merits of “conceptual math”.  Rather it is all the other things that “Investigations” does so poorly.  I started to make a list of these things, but then I found that this guy (Michigan State math professor Thomas Parker) had beat me to it:

1. It is at least 2 years behind where it should be.

For example, my son’s second grade class has yet to do anything beyond 1-digit additions. The very last problem in the program, a word problem asking how many times 5 goes into 171 (with remainder), should be a third grade problem. TERC puts it at the very end of grade 5 as a CALCULATOR problem!

2. Important topics are omitted or superficially brushed over.

Mathematics is sequential. To learn it correctly one must throughly understand on level before moving on to the next (example, understand multiplication of whole numbers before plunging into multiplication of fractions). TERC covers NOTHING in depth except for whole number mental math. In particular, the treatment of measurement, geometry, and fractions — three major parts of the elemetary curriculum— is completely inadequate.

3. In the early grades progress in math is held hostage to writing skills.

Many TERC assignments require the student to give answers in complete English sentences. This is extremely difficult for first or second graders, and completely unnecessary. Mathematics has its own notation — numbers, equations, diagrams — that are very efficient and are independent of English. Indeed those notations were developed because ordinary English is inadequate for the purpose. That mathematical language should be used and learned.

4. The program actually contains very little mathematics.

Yes, there are lots of activities, but those often have little mathematical content. Example assignment:

Find a button. Write down all the words you can think of that describe your button.

That is an assignment my son’s class spent two days on. Such assignments make teachers happy since they are easy to understand and create the illusion that everyone is involved in learning. But the hours that are suppose to be spent on mathematics are often spent on something else. In fact, TERC students do a VERY limited number of problems per week. One simply cannot learn math doing 4-5 problems a week. TERC is a program that is only pretending to teach mathematics.

5. Effective methods of mathematics and modes of thought are not taught.

In fact, nothing is taught –everything is left to be ‘discovered’. That process is painfully slow, and leaves the students with cumbersome, unmathematical ways of thinking and solving problems. They are left to somehow muddle through mathematics without explanations.

Because nothing is explained there is no mechanism for correcting errors, confusions, and misunderstandings. Students do not have books so never get to see efficient elegant solutions, or even correct solutions. Parents do not see any books so are unable to help, or even recognize how little their children are learning.

The children are aware of this. They are unsure or what is expected and why. They do not develop confidence about their ability to do math.