Someone asked this question on October, 30, 2009. It’s very relevant, so I thought I’d reply to all.
“I’m afterschooling my two sons, and looking for a math curriculum that uses PT as an element. Do you know of any structured curricula that I could use to help move their math instruction, particularly their computation skills forward?”
Thank you ..
I always encourage parents to homeschool because, as you’re teaching skills and not political viewpoints and not using the educult’s concepts, your teaching can be much more efficient. Two hours a day is easily sufficient. Nonetheless, my answer would be the same for afterschooling. as for homeschooling Here it is.
I would use Connecting Math Concepts from SRA, developed by Engelmann and associates. CMC develops concepts in the usual, effective Direct Instruction fashion and contains a sufficient amount of practice for most students. The placement tests can be downloaded here–click on placement test and then on the individual test. This program is quite pricy, but it’s the one we use.
At my outfit, the Precision Learning Centre (yes Centre, it’s in Canada), we supplement with random math sheets until the student is fluent in the basic math facts such as 7+3= , 17-9= , etc. The level of expected fluency is determined by age, grade, and other personal characteristics of the student. Each exercise has an easily reachable aim and reaching it garners a lot of things such as praise and money we believe are positive reinforcers. The Precision Teaching Behavior Charts can be purchased at BRCO. Look under Standard Celeration Charts. You’ll probably want the 4EC, but a number of others will do. People get quite exercised about the specific chart to use, but the important thing is that the student gets more fluent (faster and more accurate) and learns more facts. Again, standard students don’t need nearly as much practice as special needs students although the latter astonish me continually.
As I tell parents, these programs are not the best because I use them. I use them because they’re the best.
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
October 30, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
Grant,
Thanks for addressing my question!
I have some experience with CMC. However, I can’t seem to find complete copies anywhere. Ebay has some materials, but not the whole shebang . .. .student workbooks, etc.
Any suggestions?
October 30, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
You can usually find them on eBay if you’re patient. Another thing which I should have included is something I learned from painful experience and that is not to “cheat” on the placement tests. I’ve seen a fair number of psychometric instruments in my time, but the DI placement tests are the most accurate I’ve come across..
Cheers Grant
October 30, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
one more thought . . .
rather than use the BRCO charts, one might consider online charts. There are a number at the Precision Teaching Wiki (just google it) and look under charts
once again . . . terrific blog! it’s my daily read
October 30, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
The reason I always refer to BRCo is my allegiance to Og Lindsley. He complained about developing the Chart and not reaping the financial benefits. You can get copies online and, sentiments aside, it’s probably more practical for parents.
Cheers Grant
November 2, 2009 at 9:13 pm |
RMD, you might take a look at Sopris West’s charts. We found they were easier to use with kids than the BRCO charts (actually we could not order the BRCO charts on a school purchase order because BRCO was not an authorized supplier, but Sopris West was — that’s why we ordered them). You might have to search the site, but they are sold along with the SKill Builders Handbook by Ray Beck that is a very good introduction to PT and charting — very clear and concise. SW has some good practice materials too, part of their Skill Builder series. These were developed during the Precision Teaching project in Minnesota. The district pulled the plug on it because it was too successful (kids learned to0 much, can’t have that)
November 2, 2009 at 9:48 pm |
For those who want to look this up, it’s sometimes called the Sacajawea (fun to say) project where a cheap and short (per day) Precision Teaching project produced substantial differences. The project probably lapsed because a new principal or superintendent came in and decided that the method wasn’t in line with educult theory. Zig Engelmann, who had nothing to do with this particular project, but has overseen many other equally successful ones, says this is not unusual. Success is not a condition of employment (school is where adults get paid, not where children are taught). I argue with people occasionally about incompetence in the civil service. I maintain it’s the lack of contingencies centered on success, not a conspiracy. In the absence of contingencies, nonsense will flourish.
Cheers Grant
November 3, 2009 at 12:02 am |
Hmm. I think there are contingencies, but the contingencies reward failure, not success. If a school starts to improve and scores go up, the “special project” monies will dry up, the extra staff will be reassigned, the budget will be cut and disbursed elsewhere. Actual success is penalized, while failure brings in an army of “helpers” and lots of extra funding.
Part of the unwritten code is that employees are to scramble around looking busy and concerned, but never on any account to make *other* employees look bad by doing much more or much better than they. I’ve heard this called “tall poppy syndrome.”
November 3, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
Governments are famous for bashing against failure aka the “Verdun or Gettysburg Syndrome” whereas one picks a battle one cannot win and/or one where a win is irrelevant and throws resources at it.
The “tall poppy syndrome” is also called “rate busting punishment” whereas the good and excellent must be punished to mediocrity.
Cheers, Grant Coulson