In this PR piece of yet another “personalized learning” math software, this paragraph stands out:
Zearn Math builds deep understanding of concepts and flexible problem-solving skills through an emphasis on visualization, drawing to solve, and concrete representations of abstract concepts. The curriculum’s focus on inclusivity and accessibility aims to create a sense of belonging in the math classroom for all students by fostering the development of tenacious, lifelong learners. Each day, students learn in flexible and feedback-rich environments and are supported in accessing grade-level math with on-ramps and personalized feedback embedded throughout the curriculum, which includes over 800 digital lessons.
Supply your own interpretation in the comments below. Let’s see what you can come up with. Take it one sentence at a time–if you can.
Zearn Math builds deep understanding of concepts and flexible problem-solving skills through an emphasis on visualization, drawing to solve, and concrete representations of abstract concepts.
The curriculum’s focus on inclusivity and accessibility aims to create a sense of belonging in the math classroom for all students by fostering the development of tenacious, lifelong learners.
Each day, students learn in flexible and feedback-rich environments and are supported in accessing grade-level math with on-ramps and personalized feedback embedded throughout the curriculum, which includes over 800 digital lessons.
Here’s one to get you started: “All the bells and whistles that haven’t worked for the last 3 decades are yours in one over-priced package!”
Now your turn. Winners will be announced in a separate post.
traditional math 
Reblogged this on Nonpartisan Education Group.
LikeLike
The more online programs I see, the •less• highly I think of them. The more buzzwords I see, the more suspicious I am. Still, this company will have more than a few school districts throwing plenty of tax dollars at them.
What is the evidence of effectiveness?
LikeLike
You have to admire their ability to get every single buzzword in though.
“which includes over 800 digital lessons”
In NZ a high school kid who takes Maths all the way from Year 9 to Year 13 would receive near enough 800 lessons of Maths. Given that some are tests etc, they would get at least 600 separate teaching lessons, and perhaps more teaching sessions, given that some lessons you teach two (albeit related) things.
That would indicate that the Zearn program has very little flexibility (and practically none if any of the Zearn “lessons” are tests, like most systems have. Now if they had 2,000 lessons, it would be possible for very different students to have personalised programs. But they don’t.
LikeLike
Another COVID-19 selling ploy.
“The learning and teaching program
created by teachers, for teachers, where
all kids can love learning math”
The key above is that it’s created by teachers FOR TEACHERS. The last line is just their belief because they have no proof. There is no criteria for any type of success of skills or understanding in K-6 above the CC level, and CC’s “meeting expectations” is a really low NON-STEM level. “Exceeding Expectations” is equally low and meaningless.
What does STEM-level readiness mean in K-6? It requires the ability for individual kids to complete proper homework P-sets to at least 80% correct and getting at least that on tests of skills – on a track where they meet the criteria for getting on the algebra in 8th grade track with an 80% chance of success.
Educators never discuss the criteria and differences between schools in this area. How can students and parents and society judge the effectiveness of K-6 math when they won’t admit that their math tracking split in 7th grade is a key turning point. Many schools once tried to push all kids through algebra in 8th grade and now they are overreacting so that none can do that. That is incompetence on a grand scale.
Many parents don’t worry much about K-6 because they think that there is time in high school to correct. That’s not the case and I tutored capable students who just thought they were bad at math. Some called themselves stupid. No. They were not taught properly.
LikeLike
No winners, just recipients. Learn your new language!
LikeLike
Right; everyone gets a trophy in this competition!
LikeLike