Another cure founded on sloppy science.

I don't understand it.

US News reports

Neurofeedback: An ADHD Treatment That Retrains the Brain?

Neurofeedback hasn't yet proved out and isn't cheap, but it dangles the prospect of a permanent cure

They are not cheap and not proven; the lure of a cure is enticing. But the science seems wanting as well.

What ever happened to the scientific method as learned in grade school? What ever happened to rigor in investigation?

"ADHD experts until recently. They have noted that most studies showing benefits have been run by investigators with a financial stake; even a rigorously designed study "tends to find what it wants to find" under such conditions, says Peter Jensen, cochair of the division of child psychiatry and psychology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Nor have the studies met standards for rigorous design. Historically, most have been too small to be credible, with fewer than 50 patients, and have been sloppily done. Results have not been compared with results from medication or other forms of therapy, for example, nor has a control group received "sham treatment" that patients believed was neurofeedback but in fact did nothing, like a placebo sugar pill in a drug trial. A 2005 review coauthored by Russell Barkley, a leading expert on ADHD at the Medical University of South Carolina, raised some of these concerns. The first long-term results of neurofeedback, published in 2008, were similarly flawed. While positive, they reflected only 23 children who were followed for just two years."

Retarded no more

Words can hurt.

Words can also shortcut thinking.

Words can change the way people think about others.

This NPR article suggests that "retarded" and "gay" are going out of style.

We can only hope this trend finally reaches the school yard.

No Dog Left Behind

Can we teach a terrier to be an Alpine Rescue dog... and why we should.....not. 

Marion Brady, former teacher, wrote this commentary for Education Week. 

As a specific point, she asks if all students need to be required to meet the same standards in math and makes an interesting case for answering no. 

• Here's a question: Why are one-size-fits-all performance standards inappropriate to the point of silliness when applied to dogs, but accepted without question when applied to kids? If someone tried to set up a national program to teach every dog to do everything that various breeds are able to do, the Humane Society and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would have them in court in a New York minute. But when authorities mandate one-size-fits-all performance standards for kids, and the standards aren't met, it's the kids and teachers, not the standards, that get blamed.

and

• How much sense does it make to put a math whiz in an Algebra 2 classroom with 25 or 30 aspiring lawyers, dancers, automatic-transmission specialists, social workers, surgeons, artists, hairdressers, language teachers? How much sense does it make to put hundreds of thousands of kids on the street because they can't jump through a particular math hoop?
  

     The statement about talented Math students forced to sit in Algebra 2 with future dancers, surgeons, hairdressers, etc...., seems to be asking two questions: one about the math whiz and one about the non math whiz who still needs a level of math literacy. 

There are certainly interesting points made.

To Ponder:

What would these last paragraphs sound like if instead of math, another course were targetted -- does everyone really need to know how to write a sonnet? What if science were the target --I suspect 50 years ago, a strong background in basic science was not seen as needed for the general population; today however, this basic level of scientific literacy may well be critical for all citizens in an era of global warming, wanning fuel and agricultural production and general environmental / medical concerns. 

To Ponder:

What if instead of math or science or indeed, technology, "someone" decided that art, or music or crocheting was the one subject that everyone HAD to master to standards....

What if indeed?

New Tactics To Tackle Bystander’s Role In Bullying

An interesting aspect of this study was its focus on the bystanders and their role in tacitly empowering the bully and creating the victim.  

It is also interesting that they focus on reflection as a means of mediating the experiences. 

To Ponder:

We have many children who seem to lead frenetic, disorganized and or unfocused lives. We attribute some of that to youth and some to ADD. 

But I wonder if there is validity in explicitly teaching even younger kids to reflect and self monitor.

Could doing so in settings where adults monitor that process help develop this as a habit? 

In the face of all other demands on time, should we....

Resolutions for the New Year -

I resolve to keep this in mind:

Math teachers, math specialists and what makes a good math teacher

As many groups do, the ASCD SmartBrief for this week listed some of the top stories of 2008. One story, published in April, asked "what makes an effective math teacher?"

The answer is - we don't really know. But, at least in the early grades teaching skills need to be coupled with strong math foundations.

One of the interesting points made in the article was about the growing use of math specialists at the early grades. The observation that younger students may benefit from the nurturing provided by having one teacher for all subject areas does not necessarily diminish the value of having content specific teachers in certain subjects. Surely the benefits of greater competency in delivering the subject matter is as important as the nurturing of the generalist teacher. And is there an assumption that a specialist cannot be nurturing? Besides young children are somewhat familiar with other teachers... art, music, PE are usually specialists.

TO PONDER
Based on the reading and work I have done this year it seems clear to me that despite some overlap, there are significant differences in strategies needed to convey math concepts to younger as well as to struggling students. Just what they are is not easy to define.

What can they see

So today we were doing problems involving finding the area of composite figures. My students know the area formulas and they know how to find the area of given polygons.

But what they cannot do, it seems, is see regular polygons in composite figures. They are unable to break up an L shaped figure into 2 rectangles.
They also have difficulty using corresponding sides to figure incomplete lengths.

So while they can use the numbers in formulas, they clearly are not relating them to the real world.

TO PONDER:
Why do they have so much trouble visualizing the parts and breaking down the whole?

What can be done in math to help with this visualization deficit? Certainly lots of visual examples and perhaps manipulatives that can be taken apart and put together to form composites and regular figures. And maybe it is not what can be done in math but what can be done in other areas including art and science to attach math to the real world.