“Is Dr. Shormann’s DIVE Online Math and Science Program a Good Choice?”

Dear Friends,

An informative article written by Nakonia (Niki) Hayes. Niki is certified and experienced in journalism, mathematics, guidance counseling, special education, and administration, Ms. Hayes has taught mathematics from the 6th grade through high school to students in special education, gifted education, and regular classrooms. She also worked 17 years in journalism as a news reporter, public information officer, and speech writer for legislators in Wisconsin and Texas.

She is passionate about traditional math education for all groups of children, especially learning disabled students; she is a member of 2012 TX state committee to rewrite K-12 mathematics standards; a member of groups strongly opposed to Common Core standards, especially in mathematics; she is dedicated to bringing honor and recognition to John Saxon’s traditionally-based Saxon Mathematics program.  Shared by Donna Garner a retired teacher and education activist (Wgarner1@hot.rr.com)

 

“Is Dr. Shormann’s DIVE OnlineMath and Science Program a Good Choice?”

This message is in response to a question I received from a parent about DIVE: Shormann Math, an online mathematics and science program for homeschool and/or private school students that is written by Dr. David Shormann.  

Dr. Shormann, the program creator and director of DIVE (an interactive education website) has based his program on Saxon Math materials and methodology for many years; now he has written his own ONLINE mathematics program called Shormann Math, found on his DIVE website at https://diveintomath.com/shormann-math.  It is based in part on the Saxon methodology of incremental learning and continual review but now has integrated materials that he feels are necessary for today’s students to be successful in math and science programs. This includes technology applications, computer math, real-world problems, and non-standard solutions.  Numerous in-depth links with explanations about the program are on his website:  https://diveintomath.com/shormann-math

Dr. Shormann (https://diveintomath.com/meet-the-teacher) earned a bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering and a master’s degree in marine chemistry from the University of Texas. His doctorate in limnology (a study of inland waters) is from Texas A&M University. He has an extensive background working with mathematics and science from aerospace engineering to oceanography.

Presently living in Hawaii, Dr. Shormann said he is currently working on a patent-pending design. “It is a biomimetic airfoil based off a humpback whale’s pectoral fins. LOTS of math application going on with that. It’s got everything from Fibonacci ratios to computational fluid dynamics!”  

I contacted him because I had heard he was changing some of the methods used in Saxon Math. This seemed unacceptable to me since Saxon Math is successful when users follow Saxon methods with little to no exception.

 We talked by telephone on Thursday, March 14. This is a summary of that 70-minute conversation:

(1)    Saxon Math unchanged: Saxon Math is still being offered with no changes to its requirement of 30 homework problems and its methodology. Video lectures to accompany Saxon Math are still available in grades 4-12.

(2)    On homework: However, his own Shormann Math materials presently cover Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Advanced Math. These have 100 video lectures and lessons in each subject with 20 homework problems, as compared to Saxon Math with its 125 lessons/30 homework problems per lesson in Algebra 1; 129 lessons/30 homework in Algebra 2; and 125 lessons/30 homework in Advanced Mathematics.  

With 20 homework problems which MUST be worked in each of the 100 lessons, that equals 2,000 homework problems for each course. Dr. Shormann believes this is adequate homework practice. (All homework problems in Saxon Math MUST also be worked.)  

Considering how many schools are limiting or eliminating homework today, and one of the reasons public schools in particular avoid Saxon Math with its demand that all 30 homework problems be solved, I find Dr. Shormann is remaining true to the Saxon philosophy that completion of all homework problems supports a student’s retention and learning of information in daily lessons.

(3)    Struggling by students: I was concerned that students are not being allowed to see the solutions manual until after they had made several efforts to work out a problem. I interpreted that to reflect the progressive philosophy that students learn best by “struggling” through a lesson.  Dr. Shormann explained that with online coursework, the easy answer for students is often simply to look at the solutions manual. He wants to be sure they have made good-faith efforts to work the problems; he doesn’t want students to “struggle,” but he does want them to put in the time to try and reach the correct solution. That made sense to me.

(4)    Non-standard solutions: We discussed the issue of “non-standard solutions,” which is a particularly egregious topic with me for elementary and middle school students. Dr. Shormann said these solution processes are now required on the SAT and ACT. That is, a traditional procedure for finding an answer may need to be supported with alternative procedures to prove the student understands the concept within the SAT question.

I accepted, therefore, that non-standard solutions may need to be taught now at the high school level, but I explained those are being required, as interpreted with Common Core standards by publishers and teachers, in grades 1-8. I believe it is unacceptable to require these unfamiliar, non-standard methods in such early grade levels. For one thing, too many parents cannot help their children with lesson assignments that use such unfamiliar methods. (There are many other reasons against supplanting traditional procedures with these non-standard methods at the K-8 level.) 

(5)    Real world problems: I asked about the use of “real world” problems that Dr. Shormann promotes on his website.  John Saxon hated that progressives used the term “real world” problems simply to promote politically correct ideas within their curriculum. Dr. Shormann’s problems are from “real world”, however, as related to specific occupations, personal interests, math history, etc. That satisfied me.

(6)    Integrated math: I said the description of “integrated” mathematics is a loaded term used by progressives and resisted by many traditionalists. Based on European and Asian math programs that are not separated into distinct subjects such as algebra and geometry, and thus are “integrated” materials, Dr. Shormann believed that Saxon pioneered integrated math in America by integrating geometry throughout the Saxon algebra books and advanced math.  

I explained Saxon did that for only one reason: He said geometry is used here as a “wedge” course to weed out students from advanced math classes. That is, when students take a sequence of Algebra 1, Geometry, and then Algebra 2, the year between the algebra courses causes weaker students to struggle in Algebra 2. He believed that was eliminating many students who could have worked Algebra 2 successfully if they had had continuity with their learning in the subject. By spacing geometry over three courses, Saxon’s goal was simply to provide an uninterrupted access for more students entering higher mathematics and science. 

I’m still concerned that use of the word “integrated” in math education conjures up the weak progressive materials that are not written on the level of European or Asian courses. They are, instead, at fault for much of the failure of math education programs in America.  John Saxon’s precise use of “incremental learning” and “continual review” offers more clarity in describing his sometimes-called “blended” or “scaffolding” methods.

Summary:  Dr. Shormann and I discussed many other topics. At this point I will say that I believe his online program is an excellent one and his heart truly is in the right place for students’ learning. The traditional Saxon Math can be taken or his new Shormann Math with its integrated materials is available.

While my heart will always be with the pure and proven Saxon Math at all levels, I appreciate Christian values that support mathematics, or vice-versa, being available in lessons to non-public school students. Because I had a semester course in the history of mathematics years ago that hooked me on the subject, I am also pleased that Dr. Shormann is incorporating people and topics from that rich history into his lessons. This can help explain how greatly the world of mathematics has always transcended throughout, and thus supported, other subject areas.

http://www.educationviews.org/review-dive-online-math-and-science-program/

Respectfully,

Tincy Miller

Former Member SBOE, District 12

Member 1984-2010

Appointed: Chair 2003-2007

Elected: 2013

Re-Elected 2014

Retired January 1, 2019

tincymiller35@gmail.com

www.tincymiller.com

“Common Core Contributor Blows Whistle on Common Core ‘Reading’

Dear Friends,

A very interesting article about Common Core, written by Alex Newman. Mr. Newman is an American journalist and consultant who writes about economics, finance, banking, business, and politics for diverse publications in the United States and abroad. He studied journalism, economics and political science at the University of Florida. Shared by Donna Garner a retired teacher and education activist (Wgarner1@hot.rr.com)

“Common Core Contributor Blows Whistle on Common Core ‘Reading’

  The reading program in the Common Core national standards is contributing to an escalating crisis in literacy across America because the standards are deeply flawed and not based on science. That is according to Dr. Louisa Moats, an internationally renowned reading expert who actually served as a contributor to the Common Core’s literacy standards. Now she is sounding the alarm.

In an interview with The Newman Report, Dr. Moats explained that insufficient or poor foundational skills including phonics, phoneme awareness, and automatic, fluent word reading in the early years contributes to later literacy problems and failures in children. Another key problem is forcing children to memorize “sight words,” which are mandated under Common Core in Kindergarten.

“My warnings and protests were ignored at the time,” said Dr. Moats, who founded a firm named Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) to help teachers. “I knew from my prior experience that the way it was written, organized, would undo a lot of the progress that we had made during the previous eight years And that’s exactly what happened.”

Despite contributing to it, Dr. Moats realized that the early literacy standards would cause major problems. “I wasn’t pleased with the final Common Core document,” she added. “There’s language in Common Core that’s not based in reality, that doesn’t reflect how children learn to read. We have decades of data on what it takes for kids to acquire fluency.”

The sight word approach seeks to have children memorize whole words using their visual memory. “But this is not how a good reader reads,” Dr. Moats explained. “There is lots of evidence showing this, including studies about what happens in the brain as children learn to read. It is a myth that kids learn irregular words or learn any words ‘by sight.’ They don’t.”

Indeed, the children who are taught using sight words actually learn through the same process as everyone else, but they do it in spite of the teacher and what they are being taught. A good proportion will fall by the wayside, though, “because you can only remember so many words by rote if you don’t understand what the letters represent,” she said, pointing to sounds, syllables, meaningful parts of words, and grammatical features.” They may learn 50 words on flash cards, but then they hit the wall.”

And unfortunately, the problems in the early years cause massive issues later on. “If things aren’t done right early on, it doesn’t matter, by the time they get to high school the show is over as far as whether somebody is going to learn to read,” she said.

Dr. Moats was also surprised by how the Common Core was pushed on states. “When I was invited to work on the foundational section, I was imagining out of my naivete that this document would be floated out by Department of Education or the National Governors Association as a kind of north star or guideline for states wanting to improve their own standards,” she said. “I had no idea that what they were going to do was direct publishers to change everything and to appropriate money for the creation of aligned tests, before people understood and had debated or tried to act on the standards.”

And yet, some people were celebrating. “The next thing that happened after Common Core was published – immediately, the element in the reading field that has never wanted to put any emphasis on these foundational skills sort of came back to life, they were thrilled,” Dr. Moats said. “Some of the leaders wrote how relieved they were not to have to teach phonics, so they could focus on ‘real purpose’ of reading.”

The Newman Report will have more on Dr. Moats’ insights into reading and Common Core next week, so stay tuned.

As this writer and Dr. Sam Blumenfeld documented extensively in Crimes of the Educators, the so-called “reading wars” have been going on since Horace Mann first introduced the “whole word” method in Boston. But unfortunately, the primary casualties in these wars are not the “experts” and bigwigs in the education establishment, but the millions of children being handicapped for life with quackery. It is time for the madness to end. 

https://freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/1056-common-core-contributor-blows-whistle-on-common-core-reading

Tincy Miller

Former Member SBOE, District 12

Member 1984-2010

Appointed: Chair 2003-2007

Elected: 2013

Re-Elected 2014

Retired January 1, 2019

tincymiller35@gmail.com

www.tincymiller.com