Tag Archives: Mathematics

Culture

Student Math Scores Are Substandard Across Canada

Leave a comment
  • Over the past decade, Canadian math scores on the Program of International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) have declined in all provinces. Canadian fourth-grade students performed below the international average on nearly every benchmark level of math achievement on the 2023 TIMSS assessment.
  •  Research shows early math achievement predicts later academic achievement and future earnings. Strong math skills are crucial for career sectors like technology, finance, and data science.
  •  Canada’s declining math performance is an urgent national concern requiring immediate action by provincial governments.
  •  This E-Brief via our friends at the C.D. Howe Institute outlines five recommendations to reverse Canada’s declining math scores: align math instruction with the science of learning; use assessments and data to drive improvement; strengthen provincial math curricula; improve teachers’ math knowledge; and appoint implementers committed to reform goals.

Introduction

Strong math skills are essential for careers that drive Canada’s economy, including technology, artificial intelligence, finance, and data science. To remain globally competitive and address long-term income gaps, improving math achievement among Canadian students must be a national priority.

The link between early math skills and later academic success is well established (Duncan et al. 2011; Siegler et al. 2012). Early math achievement also correlates positively with future career earnings. According to Werner et al. (2024), math achievement in childhood is a better predictor of adult earnings at age 30 than reading, health, or social-emotional skills. These effects were observed across all demographic groups.

Canada ranked in the top 10 in math on the 2022 PISA survey, an international OECD assessment of 15-year-olds. However, ranking near the top of a falling curve does not imply that all is well. Math achievement has been falling for well over a decade, beginning well before the COVID-19 pandemic. More Canadian students now struggle in math, fewer excel, and in several provinces, the decline is roughly equivalent to two or more years of schooling.

The OECD estimates that a 20-point drop on PISA roughly equates to about one year of learning (OECD 2023). Math scores in all provinces declined more than 20 points since 2003. Seven provinces experienced declines of over 40 points,1 representing approximately two years of lost learning, while the 58-point drop in Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador is close to three years.

In all provinces, the share of students below Level 2 on PISA increased since 2003, more than doubling in every province except Prince Edward Island and Quebec. Level 2 reflects the baseline level of mathematics proficiency to participate fully in society. Over the same period, the proportion of top performers declined in every province (OECD 2023; Richards 2025). In four provinces, at least 30 percent of students scored below Level 2 on the 2022 PISA test.2

The latest results from TIMSS3 have flown under the radar in Canada, but they should be another wake-up call. PISA and TIMSS assess different constructs. PISA focuses on mathematical literacy while TIMSS tests Grade 4 and Grade 8 students on curriculum-based academic skills (e.g., arithmetic, fractions, pre-algebra), which are essential for later math courses.

Students from Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, and Quebec wrote the 2023 Grade 4 TIMSS assessment. While not all provinces participated, these jurisdictions educate well over half of Canada’s students. Results showed a clear downward trend since 2015, predating the COVID-19 pandemic: Canadian Grade 4 students scored below their peers in the United States, well below those in England, and significantly below top-performing countries like Singapore (Figure 1).

Even more alarming, Canadian fourth graders fell below the international median at nearly every benchmark level of math achievement (Table 1).

Provincial assessments tell a similar story. Ontario’s most recent EQAO tests show that 36 percent of Grade 3 students, 49 percent of Grade 6 students, and 42 percent of Grade 9 students are not meeting provincial standards in 2024-2025. Scores have remained stagnant over the last three years, despite provincial efforts to improve math performance (EQAO 2025).

Canada invests heavily in education, spending more per student than the OECD average (Figure 2), but higher education spending does not necessarily translate into better outcomes. Evidence suggests that cumulative expenditure per student between ages six and 15 improves PISA performance up to approximately US$100,000/ CAD $139,000, after which additional investment yields minimal measurable gains in student achievement (OECD 2024). For example, the cumulative spending per student between ages 6 and 15 in Canada is US$125,260/ CAD $173,848, yet Canadian 15-year-olds are outperformed by their Japanese counterparts, even though Japan spends approximately 14 percent less per student (OECD 2024). This suggests that increased funding alone cannot resolve educational performance gaps.

High-performing systems tend to strategically allocate resources toward evidence-based interventions, such as teacher quality improvements, rigorous curriculum design, standardized assessments, and targeted student support. For countries already spending above the threshold, including Canada, improving educational outcomes may require refocusing resources rather than increasing spending.

Evidence-based instructional strategies need to drive education investment decisions. This E-Brief outlines actionable policy recommendations to reverse the downward trend in Canada’s math performance and maximize returns on existing educational expenditure.

Align Math Instruction with the Science of Learning

4

Math Instruction Must be Grounded in High-quality Evidence

A major barrier to improving math outcomes in Canada is that many school math programs are not grounded in scientific evidence about how best to teach and learn math. Many popular math programs emphasize approaches such as inquiry-based or discovery-based learning,5 collaborative problem solving, or open-ended tasks.6 But a large body of research shows that problem-solving ability develops most effectively through explicit teacher-led instruction, which incorporates clear explanations, worked examples, purposeful practice, and feedback (Archer et al. 2011; Fuchs et al. 2021; Hughes et al. 2017; Stockard 2018; Sweller et al. 2010; Kirschner et al. 2006; Hartman et al. 2023; Guilmois et al. 2025).

As Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills at the OECD, has noted, PISA results reveal that teacher-directed instruction is a stronger predictor of achievement than student-oriented learning (Schleicher 2019). Recent analyses of PISA data from a sample of European countries found that student-oriented (or inquiry-based) instruction was negatively associated with PISA math achievement (Liu et al. 2024). Similar correlations have been observed in the 2010 Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP) data; the use of teacher-directed instruction was associated with better math performance, while indirect instruction was strongly associated with lower scores (CMEC 2012).

Explicit instruction benefits diverse groups of learners and is particularly critical for novice learners. Powell et al. (2025) describe systematic, explicit instruction as “the instructional approach that has amassed the strongest research base in mathematics, particularly when supporting students with mathematics disabilities or difficulties.” Hughes et al. (2017) identified five essential components of explicit instruction, based on the research literature:

  1. Model: Teacher demonstrates key concepts clearly and concisely.
  2. Break down concepts: Teach complex skills in manageable steps.
  3. Fade support: Gradually reduce instructional guidance as students gain independence.
  4. Respond and feedback: Provide frequent opportunities for student responses and feedback.
  5. Practice: Create purposeful practice opportunities to build mastery.

Teacher professional development in math rarely focuses on explicit instruction. Some popular Canadian math programs even actively discourage teacher-led demonstrations, disparaging explicit instruction as “mimicking” (Boryga 2024). This disconnect between evidence and classroom practices undermines student success.

Provinces Must Set Evidence Standards

Most math programs and instructional approaches are marketed as “research-based,” but the term carries no specific criteria for what qualifies as credible evidence. In science, that phrase usually means rigorous, replicated evidence. In education, it can mean a survey, a case study, or an opinion dressed up as evidence. Without clear standards for what constitutes evidence, schools will continue to adopt programs unsupported by rigorous studies.

The What Works Clearinghouse practice guides published by the Institute of Educational Sciences (IES) identify, evaluate, and rate recommended instructional approaches (e.g., Fuchs et al. 2021; Gersten et al. 2009). High-quality research on effective math instruction has also been summarized by the National Math Advisory Panel (NMAP 2008) and Barak Rosenshine (Rosenshine 2012).

Provincial governments should set evidence standards, drawing on evidence syntheses such as the NMAP Final Report and IES practice guides, prioritizing randomized controlled trials and peer-reviewed studies that show measurable improvements in math achievement. Funding should be directed toward evidence-based programs.

Engage Science of Learning Experts in Math Reform

Cognitive scientists, behavioral scientists, and educational psychologists have warned about the limited use of evidence-based math instruction and persistence of pseudoscientific practices in math classrooms (e.g., Codding et al. 2023; Hartman et al. 2023). These experts offer underused insights about how students develop mathematical knowledge and skills. Provincial governments should actively engage them in setting evidence standards and ensuring that instructional programs align with the best available research on how children learn math.

Math Reform Lags Behind Reading Reform

Recent Right to Read Inquiry reports in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (Ontario Human Rights Commission 2022; Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission 2023; Manitoba Human Rights Commission 2025) found that existing practices ignored the abundance of research on how to best teach reading, known as the “science of reading.” In response, some Canadian provinces and school districts have begun to correct decades of damage done in reading instruction by aligning policies with this evidence (Timmons 2024; CBC Radio 2024; Macintosh 2025). Math has not received the same level of attention or urgency. Despite a strong body of rigorous research, there is limited awareness among educators about how students learn math most effectively. Unlike literacy, where students may gain incidental exposure at home (e.g., by parents reading aloud), many Canadian students are only exposed to meaningful math learning in classrooms, making evidence-aligned instruction even more critical.

Actionable recommendations

  • Set clear evidence standards for math programs, prioritizing randomized controlled trials and peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate measurable gains in math achievement.
  • Prioritize funding for math programs and professional development aligned with high-quality evidence.
  • Engage science of learning experts, such as those in cognitive science, behavioural science, and educational psychology, alongside experienced educators with a track record of effective math instruction, to guide evidence-based practices for teaching math.

Use Assessments and Data to Drive Improvement

Canada lacks clear, consistent measures of student progress in math. Without reliable data, schools cannot accurately diagnose problems early, intervene effectively, or determine whether students are on track in math. Provincial governments should prioritize two types of assessments: standardized tests and universal screening.

Provincial Standardized Testing

Standardized tests are typically given at the end of a term or school year to measure student achievement, monitor system performance, and ensure transparency.

Test scores from school-aged students are a good predictor of later academic outcomes, including post-secondary readiness and future earnings (DeChane et al. 2024). Access to reliable data allows education systems to focus on closing proficiency gaps early, thereby narrowing educational disparities later. Bergbauer et al. (2018) analyzed PISA microdata from over two million students across 59 countries, spanning six testing cycles from 2000 to 2015, and found that accountability systems using standardized tests to compare results across schools and students are associated with higher student achievement. In countries like Estonia and Portugal, standardized assessments have led to rising PISA outcomes and greater equity. In contrast, systems with limited standardized testing, such as Spain in the 1990s, struggled to identify and support struggling students, leading to greater inequality (Crato 2021).

Standardized tests provide critical information for teachers, parents, policymakers, and the public. They give parents a clear picture of their child’s academic progress so they can advocate effectively. They provide policymakers with reliable data to evaluate system effectiveness and target resources. It is standard practice in many countries to conduct annual standardized assessments, with aggregate results published by school districts, enabling transparency and accountability to the public, but it is uncommon in Canada.

Current testing is too infrequent, which hinders early intervention and accountability.7 Moreover, provincial assessments may lack diagnostic value. For example, Ontario’s EQAO assessments allow calculators, even for Grade 3 students, making it impossible to determine whether students have mastered basic arithmetic or learned math facts to automaticity.

Math Fact Fluency Matters

Basic arithmetic fluency is the foundation for later math success, yet many provincial assessments do not adequately determine whether students have mastered foundational skills. England addressed this by introducing mandatory multiplication tables checks for nine-year-old (Year Four) students, sending a clear signal that math fact fluency matters, and prompting schools to prioritize automaticity with math facts (Gibb 2025; Gibb and Peal 2025; UK Department for Education 2025).

The ability to recall math facts, like times tables, accurately and effortlessly from memory, is known as math fact fluency8 or automaticity. This is crucial since it reduces cognitive load, making it easier to tackle complex math problems that involve math facts (National Math Advisory Panel 2008; Hartman et al. 2023; McNeil et al. 2025). For example, when adding two fractions with denominators 6 and 8, math fact automaticity allows students to quickly produce 24 as the least common denominator. Students without math fact automaticity will struggle with fraction arithmetic.

Evidence-based methods for developing math fact fluency have been documented (for example, see Codding et al. 2011; Poncy et al. 2007, 2010 and 2015; and Stokke 2024 for an overview), but if reliable data is not being collected, schools may not devote sufficient resources to this critical skill or may fail to identify students who need support. A mandatory times tables check in primary school is a straightforward, high-impact policy.

Universal screening identifies students at risk of falling behind

While standardized tests provide system-level data, universal screeners are brief, timed assessments given two to three times per year. They are designed to quickly identify students who are behind so that evidence-based interventions can be used to provide remediation to ensure more equitable access to the core curriculum.

Provincial Human Rights Commission reports highlight the importance of universal screening for reading (Ontario Human Rights Commission 2022; Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission 2023; Manitoba Human Rights Commission 2025). Math requires the same urgency. Early studies found that when this kind of data is paired with effective math interventions, student math achievement improved (Fuchs et al., 1989; Fuchs et al., 1991; Allinder et al., 2000; Nelson et al. 2023). The IES practice guide on Response to Intervention recommends screening K-8 students in math twice per year using measures that are efficient (less than 20 minutes), reliable, and demonstrate predictive validity (Gersten et al. 2009). Using valid screeners is essential to accurately identify students at risk (VanDerHeyden et al. 2021; VanDerHeyden and Solomon 2023).

Screening alone is insufficient. Screening must be paired with intervention programs that incorporate evidence-based strategies, since ad hoc or “design your own” programs are unlikely to turn things around for struggling students.

Addressing Myths About Timed Activities

Concerns that timed assessments cause math anxiety are not supported by research. In fact, struggling with math has been identified as a factor in the development of math anxiety (Maki et al. 2024). Therefore, the best way to reduce math anxiety is to improve student achievement in math. Timed activities, such as low-stakes timed practice and timed retrieval practice, are essential for developing fluency. Timed activities are a key recommendation in the IES practice guide on evidence-based supports for struggling students, and there is strong evidence that they increase math achievement (Fuchs et al. 2021). Many timed activities and assessments are brief, and students tend to enjoy them.

Timed activities such as standardized tests and screening are essential to ensure students get the support they need. Standardized tests allow students to show what they have learned, and universal screeners are like academic “check-ups,” helping to catch problems early.

Actionable recommendations

  • Adopt a mandatory times tables check before the end of Grade 4.
  • Prohibit calculators on primary school provincial assessments.
  • Implement universal screening in math for all K-8 students using screening tools with demonstrated predictive validity.
  • Pair screening with evidence-based interventions.
  • Strengthen provincial standardized testing, implementing tests at key grades and tracking student progress over time.

Strengthen Provincial Math Curricula

Delays in Foundational Content are Holding Students Back

In a 2015 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary (Stokke 2015), I recommended that K-8 math curricula focus on concepts critical for later success in algebra and beyond. Most Canadian math curricula still delay foundational skills, leaving students behind their peers in other countries. When students build strong fluency early, they are better equipped to participate in advanced problem solving and mathematical reasoning.

Some provinces have made changes since 2015. Alberta’s 2023 revisions of the K-6 curriculum reinstated core concepts at appropriate grade levels. Ontario’s 2020 curriculum update requires recall of multiplication facts up to 12 x 12 by Grade 5. This is later than international benchmarks, and it is unclear whether fluency will improve since EQAO tests permit calculators. Manitoba and Saskatchewan also delay recall of multiplication facts (up to 10 x 10) until the end of Grade 5 and provide no accountability measures to ensure mastery. British Columbia’s 2016 curriculum is even worse, delaying or omitting key concepts entirely, and explicitly stating in the Grade 5 curriculum that “memorization of [math] facts is not intended” (Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Education, 2016). In contrast, the US Common Core and other international curricula expect students to achieve multiplication fact fluency by the end of Grade 3.

Fraction arithmetic is a strong predictor of later math achievement (Siegler et al. 2012), but is not taught in most Canadian provinces until Grades 7 or 8. This is two to three years behind the US Common Core State Standards, where students learn fraction arithmetic in Grades 4 and 5 (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers 2023). The NMAP stressed improving fraction fluency to improve algebra outcomes (NMAP 2008).

Delays in teaching foundational topics widen inequities by disproportionately harming disadvantaged students, whose families are less able to pay for private tutoring to compensate for gaps. Delays reduce practice time, leading to compounding knowledge gaps and lower success in advanced math.

The above table, based on recommendations from the NMAP final report and benchmarks from high-performing jurisdictions, serves as a guide for when key topics should be covered.

Actionable recommendations

  • Revise provincial math curricula to emphasize foundational topics at earlier grades, using the above table as a guideline.
  • Require automatic recall of basic math facts as an explicit learning outcome in provincial curricula where it is not currently mandated.

Curriculum changes alone are not enough. Without evidence-based math programs and accountability measures such as mandatory times tables checks, rigorous standardized assessments, and restrictions on calculator use in early grades, even strong curriculum outcomes will have limited impact on improving student achievement.

Strengthen Teacher Content Knowledge in Mathematics

To improve math outcomes for students, we must ensure they are taught by teachers with strong math knowledge. The most practical time to build this knowledge is during university, when teacher candidates complete coursework to prepare for their careers. We have a responsibility to future generations to make this investment now, before teachers enter the profession and impact students.

Math Teachers Need More than High School Math

A high school math background and pedagogy courses are not sufficient preparation for teaching K-8 math. Teachers need deep mathematical knowledge, extending beyond the content they are expected to teach, in order to anticipate misconceptions and prepare students for future math success (Ma 1999; Hill et al. 2005).

Since provincial governments certify teachers, they have a duty to ensure that teacher preparation meets minimum standards. Claims suggesting that teachers’ math knowledge is unimportant or negatively related to teaching effectiveness have been debunked (Barr et al. 2024).

Most Canadian provinces follow a generalist model in K-8, where teachers instruct all subjects, including math. In my 2015 Commentary, I recommended that provinces require K-8 teacher candidates to complete at least six credit hours in math content courses designed to give them a solid understanding of the math they will teach. I also recommended implementing math teacher licensure exams for K-8 teachers to ensure minimum proficiency, a recommendation recently echoed by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) (Drake et al. 2025).

The NCTQ recommends that teacher candidates receive at least 105 instructional hours in math content and 45 hours of math pedagogy,9 which is equivalent to three to four university-level math content courses in Canada. Apart from Quebec, no Canadian province meets this expectation, and some are regressing.

Manitoba briefly required two math content courses for students entering teacher preparation programs after 2015, with the first affected cohort graduating in 2020, but eliminated the requirement in 2024 (Macintosh 2025). While intended to boost enrolment in teacher education programs, this decision comes at the expense of students taught by unprepared teachers.

The NCTQ also recommends that elementary teacher candidates pass a strong math licensure exam, covering four core math topics.10 Ontario has recently introduced a Mathematics Proficiency Test for teacher certification, effective February 2025 (EQAO, n.d.). Other provinces have yet to follow suit.

Actionable recommendations

  • Require a minimum of six credit hours in math content courses tailored to K-8 teachers, as part of licensing requirements.
  • Implement rigorous math licensure exams for K-8 teachers prior to certification.

Appoint Implementers Committed to the Reform Goals

Reform in math education cannot succeed when implementation is entrusted to individuals who oppose or misunderstand its goals. Policymakers in Canada may recognize the problems within the current system and propose promising solutions to improve math achievement. However, too often, reforms fail when implementation is led by individuals invested in maintaining the very system that needs fixing. For example, despite the Ontario government’s commitment to improving student achievement, improvement has been inadequate, prompting a newly announced external review (Ontario Ministry of Education 2025). To achieve meaningful and lasting improvements in math outcomes, leaders must stay engaged at every stage of the reform process. This includes carefully selecting implementers who are genuinely committed to the goals of reform, building coalitions of educators and stakeholders who support evidence-based practices, and establishing clear accountability measures to track progress and address resistance.

Conclusion

Improving math achievement in Canada requires both immediate action and long-term investments. Policymakers can implement high-impact, low-cost reforms immediately, such as introducing a mandatory times tables check and implementing universal math screening. At the same time, they can work to ensure math instruction aligns with evidence, improve provincial math curricula, and strengthen teacher certification standards.

Below is a summary of actionable recommendations for provincial policymakers and education leaders:

Use assessments and data to drive improvement

  • Adopt a mandatory times tables check by the end of Grade 4.
  • Prohibit calculators on primary school provincial assessments to ensure arithmetic fluency.
  • Implement universal screening in math for all K-8 students, paired with evidence-based interventions.
  • Strengthen provincial standardized testing by adding assessments at key grades and tracking student progress over time.

Align math instruction with the science of learning

  • Set clear evidence standards for math instructional programs, prioritizing randomized controlled trials and peer-reviewed studies showing measurable gains in math achievement.
  • Prioritize funding for math programs and professional development aligned with high-quality evidence.
  • Engage science of learning experts, such as those in cognitive science, behavioural science, educational psychology, as well as experienced educators with a track record of effective math instruction to guide evidence-based practices for teaching math.

Strengthen provincial math curricula

  • Revise math curricula to introduce foundational topics earlier, following benchmarks from the National Math Advisory Panel.
  • Require automatic recall of basic math facts as an explicit learning outcome in all provincial curricula.

Strengthen teacher content knowledge in math

  • Require a minimum of 6 credit hours in math content courses tailored to K-8 teachers, as part of licensing requirements.
  • Implement rigorous math licensure exams for K-8 teachers before certification.
  • Appoint implementers committed to the reform goals
  • Appoint committed implementers who support evidence-based practices to ensure policies are carried out as intended.

Better math education is crucial for Canada’s students, workforce, and economic future. The time to fix math instruction in Canada is now. With committed leadership, evidence-based policies, and meaningful action, provinces can reverse the decline and set students up for long-term success in mathematics.

The author thanks Colin Busby, Brian Poncy, Narad Rampersad, John Richards, Andrew Sharpe, Benjamin Solomon, Ross Stokke, Rosalie Wyonch, and Tingting Zhang for comments on an earlier draft. The author also thanks John Mighton and Nuno Crato for discussions and advice. The author retains responsibility for any errors and the views expressed.

Appendix

For The Silo, Anna Stokke – C.D. Howe Institute

References

Archer, Anita, and Charles A. Hughes. 2011. Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching. New York: Guilford Publications.

Barr, Darja, Jim Clark, James Currie, Payman Eskandari, Shakhawat Hossain, Narad Rampersad, Anna Stokke, Ross Stokke, and Matthew Wiersma. 2024. “Fact-checking Research Claims about Math Education in Manitoba.” Nonpartisan Education Review 20(2): 1–47.

Bergbauer, Annika, Eric Hanushek, and Ludger Woessman. 2018. “Testing.” NBER Working Paper 24836. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24836.

Boryga, Andrew. 2023. “How to Turn Your Math Classroom into a ‘Thinking Classroom’.” Edutopia. March 24. https://www.edutopia.org/article/thinking-classroom-peter-liljedahl-math.

Binder, Carl. 1996. “Behavioral Fluency: Evolution of a New Paradigm.” The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 163–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393163.

CBC Radio. 2024. “Updated Reading Curriculum Moves to Embed Phonics and Fluency, Not Just Comprehension.” The Current. April 4. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/updated-reading-curriculum-1.7313187.

Codding, Robin, Corey Peltier, and Jared Campbell. 2023. “Introducing the Science of Math.” Teaching Exceptional Children 56(1): 6-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221121721.

Codding, Robin, Matthew Burns, and Gracia Lukito. 2011. “Meta–Analysis of Mathematic Basic–Fact Fluency Interventions: A Component Analysis.” Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 26(1): 36-47.

Council of Ministers of Education (CMEC), Canada. 2012. PCAP-2010 Contextual Report on Student Achievement in Mathematics. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education.

CMEC, Canada. 2023. Measuring Up: Canadian Results of the OECD PISA 2022 Study. Toronto: CMEC.

Crato, Nuno. 2021. “Setting up the Scene: Lessons Learned from PISA 2018 Statistics and Other International Student Assessments.” In Improving a Country’s Education, edited by Nuno Crato. Cham: Springer.

DeChane, Darrin, Takako Nomi, and Michael Podgursky. 2024. “College and Career Ready: How Well Does 8th Grade MAP Performance Predict Post-Secondary Educational Attainment?” CALDER Working Paper No. 300-0524.

Deans for Impact. 2015. The Science of Learning. Austin, TX: Deans for Impact.

Drake, Glenn, Russell Noble, and Heather Peske. 2025. Teacher Prep Review: Solving for Math Success. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. April.

Duncan, Greg, and Katherine Magnuson. 2011. “The Nature and Impact of Early Achievement Skills, Attention Skills, and Behavior Problems.” In Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, 47–69.

Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO). 2025. “Mathematics Proficiency Test.” https://www.eqao.com/the-assessments/math-proficiency-test/.

EQAO. 2025. “EQAO Releases Assessment Results for 2024-2025 School Year.” https://www.eqao.com/about-eqao/news-release/assessment-results-2025/.

Fuchs, Lynn, Douglas Fuchs, Carol Hamlett, and Pamela Stecker. (1991). “Effects of Curriculum-Based Measurement and Consultation on Teacher Planning and Student Achievement in Mathematics Operations.” American Educational Research Journal 28(3): 617-641. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028003617.

Fuchs, Lynn, Rebecca Newman-Gonchar, Rebecca Schumacher, Barbara Dougherty, Natalie Bucka, Karen Karp, John Woodward, Bradley Clarke, Nancy Jordan, Russell Gersten, Madhavi Jayanthi, Brenda Keating, and Sarah Morgan. 2021. “Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Intervention in the Elementary Grades (WWC 2021006).” Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.

Gersten, Russell, Sybilla Beckman, Benjamin Clarke, Anne Foegen, Laurel Marsh, Jon Star, and Bradley Witzel. 2009. “Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools (NCEE 2009-4060).” Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.

Gibb, Nick. 2025. “From Decline to Top Rankings: How England Transformed Education with Nick Gibb.” Interview by Anna Stokke. Chalk & Talk (podcast). May 30. https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-zps9p-18c1e97.

Gibb, Nick and Robert Peal. 2025. Reforming Lessons: Why English Schools Have Improved Since 2010 and How This Was Achieved. 1st ed. London: Routledge.

Guilmois, Celine, Tom Rohmer, and Maria Popa-Roch. 2025. “Learning basic mathematic skills in primary school: testing the effectiveness of socio-constructivist and explicit instruction.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2025.2536485.

Hartman, Judith, Sarah Hart, Eric Nelson, and Paul Kirschner. 2023. “Designing Mathematics Standards in Agreement with Science.” International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 18(3): em0739. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/13179.

Hill, Heather, Brian Rowan, and Deborah Ball. 2005. “Effects of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achievement.” American Educational Research Journal 42(2): 371–406. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371.

Hughes, Charles, Jared Morris, William Therrien, and Sarah Benson. 2017. “Explicit Instruction: Historical and Contemporary Contexts.” Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 32(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12142.

Kirschner, Paul, John Sweller, and Richard Clark. 2006. “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.” Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75 86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

Liu, Xin, Kajsa Hansen, Valcke, Martin, and Jan Neve. 2024. “A Decade of PISA: Student-Perceived Instructional Quality and Mathematics Achievement across European Countries.” ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01630-7.

Ma, Liping. 1999. Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers’ Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Macintosh, Maggie. 2025. “A New Read on Literacy.” Winnipeg Free Press. January 31. https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/2025/01/31/a-new-read-on-literacy.

_______________. 2025a. “Probe into Literacy One of Human Rights Commission’s Top Priorities.” Winnipeg Free Press. January 16. https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/2025/01/16/probe-into-literacy-one-of-human-rights-commissions-top-priorities.

_______________. 2025b. “Changes to Certification Process for Teachers Went Too Far.” Winnipeg Free Press. January 21. https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/2025/01/21/changes-to-certification-process-for-teachers-went-too-far.

Maki, Kathrin, Anne Zaslosky, Robin Codding, and Breanne Woods. 2024. “Math Anxiety in Elementary Students: Examining the Role of Timing and Task Complexity.” Journal of School Psychology 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101316.

Manitoba Human Rights Commission. 2025. The ABCs of a Rights-Based Approach to Teaching Reading. October. https://www.manitobahumanrights.ca/education/pdf/public-consultations/supportingrighttoread.pdf.

Mayer, Richard. 2017. “Educational Psychology’s Past and Future Contributions to the Science of Learning, Science of Instruction, and Science of Assessment.” Journal of Educational Psychology 110: 174-179. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000195.

McNeil, Nicole, Nancy Jordan, Amanda Viegut, and Daniel Ansari. 2025. “What the Science of Learning Teaches Us About Arithmetic Fluency.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 26(1): 10–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006241287726.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. 2023. “Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.” Washington, DC: NGA Center and CCSSO, September. https://corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Math_Standards1.pdf.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). 2008. Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Jessup, MD: US Department of Education.

Nelson, Gena, Allyson J. Kiss, Robin S. Codding, Nicole M. McKevett, Johna F. Schmitt, Soyoung Park, Monica E. Romero and Jiyung Hwang. 2023. “Review of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Mathematics: An Update and Extension of the Literature.” Journal of School Psychology 97: 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.12.001.

OECD. 2023. PISA 2022 Results: The State of Learning and Equity in Education. Vol. I. Paris: OECD Publishing.

______. 2024. Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-at-a-glance-2024_c00cad36-en.html.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. 2022. Right to Read: Inquiry Report – Public Inquiry into Human Rights Issues Affecting Students with Reading Disabilities. February 28. Government of Ontario. https://www3.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/FINAL%20R2R%20REPORT%20DESIGNED%20April%2012.pdf.

Ontario Ministry of Education. 2025. “Ontario Taking Action to Improve Student Achievement.” https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1006809/ontario-taking-action-to-improve-student-achievement.

Poncy, Brian, Erica McCallum, and Ara Schmitt. 2010. “A Comparison of Behavioral and Constructivist Interventions for Increasing Math-Fact Fluency in a Second-Grade Classroom.” Psychology in the Schools 47(9): 917–930.

Poncy, Brian, Chris Skinner, and Kimberly Jaspers. 2007. “Evaluating and Comparing Interventions Designed to Enhance Math Fact Accuracy and Fluency: Cover, Copy, and Compare versus Taped Problems.” Journal of Behavioral Education 16(1): 27–37.

Poncy, Brian, Kathryn Jaspers, Paul Hansmann, Levita Bui, and William Matthew. 2015. “A Comparison of Taped-Problems Interventions to Increase Math Fact Fluency: Does the Length of Time Delay Impact Student Learning Rates?” Journal of Applied School Psychology 31: 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2014.963273.

Powell, Sarah, Elizabeth Hughes, Erica Lembke, Matthew Burns, Gena Nelson, Brian Poncy, Robin Codding, Ben Clarke, Corey Peltier, and Genesis Arizmendi. 2025. “The NCTM/CEC Position Statement on Teaching Mathematics to Students with Disabilities: What’s in It and What’s Not.” Research in Special Education 2. https://doi.org/10.25894/rise.2796.

Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Education. 2016. Mathematics K–9 elaborations. BC Ministry of Education. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca//files/curriculum/mathematics/en_mathematics_k-9_elab.pdf.

Richards, John. 2025. “The Case of the Boiling Frogs: Provincial Indifference to Declining Education Outcomes.” E-Brief No. 369. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. https://cdhowe.org/publication/the-case-of-the-boiling-frogs-provincial-indifference-to-declining-education-outcomes/.

Rosenshine, Barak. 2012. “Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know.” American Educator 36(1): 12.

Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. 2023. Equitable Education for Students with Reading Disabilities: Report. September 21. Government of Saskatchewan. https://saskatchewanhumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Equitable-Education-for-Students-with-Reading-Disabilities-report.pdf.

Schleicher, Andreas. 2019. “Where ‘Working Hard and Being Kind’ Are Part of the Curriculum.” OECD Education Today. November 20. https://oecdedutoday.com/working-hard-and-being-kind/.

Siegler, Robert, Greg Duncan, Pamela Davis-Kean, Kathryn Duckworth, Amy Claessens, Mimi Engel, Maria Ines Susperreguy, and Meichu Chen. 2012. “Early Predictors of High School Mathematics Achievement.” Psychological Science 23(7): 691–697.

Stockard, Jean, Timothy Wood, Cristy Coughlin, and Caitlin Rasplica Khoury. 2018. “The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research.” Review of Educational Research 88(4): 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919.

Stokke, Anna. 2024. “How to Build Automaticity with Math Facts.” Chalk & Talk (podcast). November 8. https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-3ny3k-17323a9.

__________. 2015. What to Do About Canada’s Declining Math Scores. Commentary 427. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. https://cdhowe.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/commentary_427.pdf.

Sweller, John, Richard Clark, and Paul Kirschner. 2010. “Teaching General Problem-Solving Skills Is Not a Substitute for, or a Viable Addition to, Teaching Mathematics.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society 57(10): 1303–1304.

Timmons, Kristy 2024. “Changes Are Coming to Ontario’s Kindergarten Program – What Parents and Caregivers Need to Know.” The Conversation, February 12.

UK Department for Education. 2025. “Multiplication Tables Check.” https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/multiplication-tables-check.

VanDerHeyden, Amanda, Matthew Burns, Corey Peltier, and Robin Codding. 2021. “The Science of Math: The Importance of Mastery Measures and the Quest for a General Outcome Measure.” Communiqué 50(5).

VanDerheyden, Amanda, and Benjamin Solomon. 2023. “Valid Outcomes for Screening and Progress Monitoring: Fluency Is Superior to Accuracy in Curriculum-Based Measurement.” School Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000528.

von Davier, Matthias, Ann Kennedy, Katherine Reynolds, Bethany Fishbein, Lale Khorramdel, Charlotte Aldrich, Allison Bookbinder, Ummugul Bezirhan, and Liqun Yin. 2024. TIMSS 2023 International Results in Mathematics and Science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.timss.rs6460.

Werner, Kevin, Gregory Acs, and Kristin Blagg. 2024. “Comparing the Long-Term Impacts of Different Child Well-Being Improvements.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Culture

The Intelligent Design Of Our Universe

1 Comment

This isn't such a complex principle after all. Essentially, the idea is- if we can see strong similarities in design between say a Planet and between a structure or diagram that represents something else, then the inherent 'sameness' means an intelligence is at work, not some form of randomness. We'd love to hear your thoughts- agree or disagree? Comments are welcome at the bottom of this post CP
This isn’t such a complex principle after all. Essentially, the idea is- if we can see strong similarities in design between say a Planet and between a structure or diagram that represents something else, then the inherent ‘sameness’ means an intelligence is at work, not some form of randomness. We’d love to hear your thoughts- agree or disagree? Comments are welcome at the bottom of this post CP

Nothing exists for nothing, the universe is not itself made, and nothing in it has nothing to do.

The moment Mankind has been waiting for over a millennium has finally arrived. A tangible proof of off-planet life has occurred. The higher powers have at long last shown their hand.

In nineteen ninety nine, a website called ‘The Revelatorium’ was launched. The website revealed many aspects of the higher dimensions not previously known. By the fall of two thousand and thirteen the Revelatorium had morphed into a full revelation of the Intelligent Design by which all of Creation has been blueprinted and expressed.

The verity of the Design has now been proven in real time.

The drawing is Figure 77 in Chapter 8 of the Revelatorium. The figure depicts the cubistic blueprint of the first six dimensions of the Outer Creation according to the formats of the Intelligent design.
The drawing is Figure 77 in Chapter 8 of the Revelatorium. The figure depicts the cubistic blueprint of the first six dimensions of the Outer Creation according to the formats of the Intelligent design.

This image is of Saturn's North Pole and was taken recently by the Cassini probe.
This image is of Saturn’s North Pole and was taken recently by the Cassini probe.

If you carefully compare the Revelatorium and Cassini pictures you will see that they are structurally identical. The Revelatorium drawing was done in two thousand and two. The Cassini probe was launched in 2009.

Both have a clearly defined center hexagon area representing the first, second, and third dimensions collectively. Particularly confirmed is the red circle area in the middle.

A second greenish coloured hexagon ring with pink splotches around the first hexagon ring matches the ring of six different cubit designs around the center of Figure 77, representing the fourth dimension.

A third, blue colored hexagon shaped ring with uniform pink splotches around the second ring matches the ring of twelve identical cubit designs around the second ring of six cubits of Figure 77, representing the fifth dimension.

And finally a fourth hexagon shaped ring with faint pink splotches and completely different background color around the third ring matches the ring of eighteen identical cubit designs around the ring of twelve cubits of Figure 77, representing the six dimension.

[On higher dimensional physics: http://www.reasons.org/articles/higher-dimensions CP]

A close up of the Cassini image in black and white shows the features more distinctly, in particular the first second and third dimensional hexagon and circle aspects in the middle
A close up of the Cassini image in black and white shows the features more distinctly, in particular the first second and third dimensional hexagon and circle aspects in the middle

 In short, the Saturn hexagon is a concrete lower dimensional proof of a higher dimensional factor.

The striking similarities in the respective pictures are not coincidental. The Saturn hexagon is home of the Solar System government. The hexagon is a magnetic resonance reflection in the third dimension of the domain’s six dimensional configuration. The population lives within its fifth dimensional band of materialization, represented by the thick ring in the hexagon, and ring of twelve similar designs in the same location in Figure 77.

As the cubistic matrix of Figure 77 would imply, the whole Intelligent Design is dirt simple and can be understood by anyone. The basic elements of the Intelligent Design consist solely of a sphere, a cube, and straight lines. The rules by which the elements work together hold the key. There is aught in existence not of the Design.

In figure 77, the red spheres represents Intelligence, the blue straight lines represent Energy, and the yellow cubes represents Substance. The attribute of the Father is Intelligence, the attribute of the Son is Energy, and the attribute of the Holy Ghost is Substance. Intelligence, Energy, and Substance is all there is.

The two most fundamental elements of the whole Design are The 'Cube and Sphere of Alpha and Omega' and the 'Cubit'.
The two most fundamental elements of the whole Design are The ‘Cube and Sphere of Alpha and Omega’ and the ‘Cubit’.

The Cube and Sphere comprises the entirety of the fourteenth dimension and acts as interface between the un-materialized inner form of the Creators in their fifteenth dimension as the Holy Trinity and above, and their materialized outer form in the thirteenth dimension and below as ‘Creation’.

The Cube and Sphere projected one dimension down to the thirteenth dimension comprises the ‘Cubit’, shown below. The ‘Cubit’ is the basic genome of Creation. By principle of the Cubit the whole of Creation has been blueprinted and expressed.

If you look again at Figure 77, you will see that it is composed entirely of variations upon the cubit. The variations reflect specifically different frequencies according to rule. By the rule the differing frequencies comprise the differing aspects of Creation. By this simple principle, the Intelligent Design is capable of blueprinting and depicting all of Creation in all of its aspects. The current Creation is over nine hundred trillion light years across and still within its infancy.

The Cube and Sphere

The Intelligent Design can be found in its totality at website http://www.revelatorium.com/.  For details about every thing going on now inter-dimensionally, also see: http://www.revelatorium.com/.  For the Silo, Delahnnovahh-Starr Livingstone.

Supplemental- Dr. William Dembski http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/776

Sci-Tech

Connection Between Music And Math

Leave a comment

I remember the first time I heard the statement “Did you know that listening to classical music enhances your mathematical abilities?”

I was both intrigued and excited, intrigued because I did not understand how music and math, two seemingly unrelated subject could possibly affect each other. I was also excited because I began to view classical music as some kind of magical potion that would transform my math skills from decent to extraordinary. When I had the opportunity to write this web paper for The Silo, I immediately jumped into the topic of music and math. The questions that I wish to answer throughout this paper are; does listening to music really help you do better in math? If so, which part of the brain is controlling the correlation between math and music? In addition, how does music stimulate the brain in a way that enhances mathematical abilities?

It turns out that there is much evidence that supports the positive effects of music on one’s ability to do math.

Most research shows that when children are trained in music at a young age, they tend to improve in their math skills. The surprising thing in this research is not that music as a whole is enhancing math skills. It is certain aspects of music that are affecting mathematics ability in a big way.

Studies done mostly in children of young age show that their academic performance increases after a certain period of music education and training. One particular study published in the journal ‘Nature’ showed that when groups of first graders were given music instruction that emphasized sequential skill development and musical games involving rhythm and pitch, after six months, the students scored significantly better in math than students in groups that received traditional music instruction. (1)

The result of this study posed another important question. How does this type of music that emphasized sequential skills, rhythm and pitch manage to improve children’s ability to do math? It turned out that there are two distinguished types of reasoning, spatial temporal (ST) reasoning and Language analytical (LA) reasoning. LA reasoning would be involved in solving equations and obtaining a quantitative result. ST reasoning would be is utilized in activities like chess when one needs to think ahead several moves.

The effect of music on math sometimes termed the Mozart effect.

The Mozart effect gain its name after the discovery that listening to Mozart’s compositions, which is very sequential, produces a short-termed enhancement of spatial-temporal reasoning. Some key reasoning features used in spatial temporal reasoning are:

1. The transformation and relating of mental images in space and time

2. Symmetries of the inherent cortical firing patterns used to compare physical and mental images and

3. Natural temporal sequences of those inherent cortical patterns (3).

The same people who conducted the Mozart effect experiment also suggested that spatial-temporal reasoning is crucial in math. The areas of math that require ST reasoning are geometry and certain aspects of calculus, which require transformations of images in space and time. In higher mathematics, the ability to write mathematical proofs is also associated with ST reasoning because proof writing is a task that requires intuitive sense of natural sequences and the ability to think ahead several steps.

As to the question, what part of the brain controls the correlation between math and music, there are also many resources that provide answers.

Dr. Gottfried Schlaug, found that certain regions of the brain such as the corpus callosum and the right motor cortex, were larger in musician who started their musical training before the age of 7 (2). As to what happens in that area of the brain when one listens to music, we turn to the experiment performed by Xiaodeng Leng and Gordon Shaw. Gordon and Leng developed a model of higher brain function, which is based on the trion model. The trion model is a highly structured mathematical realization of the Mountcastle organization principle, with the column as the basic neuronal network in mammalian cortex. The column comprises mini-columns called trions.

One particular columnar network of trions has a large repertoire of spatial-temporal firing patterns, which can be excited and used in memory and higher brain functions (3). Shaw and Leng performed an experiment in which they mapped the trion model of firing patterns in that particular column onto various pitches and instruments producing recognizable styles of music. This mapping of the trions gaves insight to relate the neuronal processes involved in music and abstract spatial-temporal reasoning (3).

It shows that the part of the cortex, which contains the repertoire of spatial-temporal firing patterns, can be excited by music and is utilized in higher brain functions such as spatial-temporal thinking in mathematics.

In conclusion, my research into math and music does seem to suggest that music truly enhances mathematics skills. Music targets one specific area of the brain to stimulate the use of spatial-temporal reasoning, which is useful in mathematical thinking. However, as to the question of whether or not music is the magical portion that will elevate anyone’s ability to do math, the answer unfortunately . . .would be no.

Just because most mathematicians are fond of music, doesn’t mean that all musicians are fond of mathematics. I found a letter posted on the web written by a fourteen-year-old overachiever to a mathematics professor. The student expresses his frustration that even though he is an excellent musician, math is one of his weakest subjects. In math, he is not making the grades that he needs to stay in a certain prestigious academic program (4).

This letter seems to suggest that listening to music, or being able to master a musical instrument does not automatically guarantee that one can perform well in math. In other words, there are many musicians who are good in music but not in math. Music is a lot more than notes conforming to mathematical patterns and formulas. Music is exhilarating because of the intricacies of the patterns that occurs. Whether or not these patterns resemble math has no relevance to many musicians. More often than not, musicians are inclined to practice music because of the wonders and awe that they feel for music even if they are not aware of the math that is in music. Cindy Zhan

WWW Resources (1)Making the case of music education (2)Music on the mind (3)Spatial-temporal versus language-analytical reasoning: the role of music training (4)Letter written by a young musician

This Is Your Brain On Music BookThis Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession is a popular science book written by the McGill University neuroscientist Daniel J. Levitin, and first published by Dutton Penguin in the U.S. and Canada in 2006, and updated and released in paperback by Plume/Penguin in 2007. It has been translated into 18 languages and spent more than a year on The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, and other bestseller lists, and sold more than one million copies.
Culture

Winners And Losers Around The World In School Lunches

Leave a comment

School has ‘been in’ for awhile now. Does your child’s school lunches sound healthy to you? How do you think it compares to school dinners from around the world? And how much do school meals affect energy levels for post-lunch learning and does that have an impact on PISA test results?

Check out this infographic to discover what the school meals of other countries look like and how each nation scores on the PISA test. For the Silo, Dinah Makani.

around the world in school lunchboxes infographic
CLICK ME to visit this graphic’s sponsor 🙂

Sci-Tech

How Technology Will Shape Teaching In The Future

Leave a comment

In the past decade and a half cellphones have evolved from contraptions you make calls from to devices that do so much more. Now they can help you organize your social life, perform your banking and act as a food diary. There’s an app to be found that is based on your entire existence!

With tablets being commonly used in schools, and the fact that ICT is a relatively new subject, technology is changing the way students are being taught.

In this piece, we’ll provide a comprehensive guide of how technology will shape the future of education and what students will be studying and using in years to come.

From making use of 3D printers, to using virtual reality as part of an immersive learning experience, the possibilities are endless!

So what are you waiting for? Take that first step to get ahead in the future by having a sneak peek in this infographic from our friends at educationcity.com.

Culture

Get Your Children Ahead This Summer With Fun Math Songs

Leave a comment

Get your children ahead this summer

Summer is here, but that doesn’t mean your child can’t keep learning. Karen Sokolof Javitch’s album ‘YOU’RE MATH-ERRIFIC’ is out now.

YOU’RE MATH ERRIFIC features educational songs that can help your children get ahead. Use these songs along with other educational apps to help keep children busy this summer.

Karen’s diverse creations include songs about exercising, celebrities, holidays, political figures, babies, children, math, patriotism, love and family.

The album contains both fun and educational songs and can be found on her website, https://jmrproductions.com/

Here today to talk about her music is Karen Sokolof Javitch.

Questions:

  • What inspired you to create this album? I loved math as a child, but I know that many children struggle with it. So I wanted to write some songs that would be fun to listen to and be helpful with certain math concepts. I would recommend the songs for elementary school students.
  • How can these songs help children with their math? .All of the songs have catchy melodies and are all fun to listen to. I’ve included a wide variety of subjects – addition, subtractions, shapes, counting, counting coins, And I take certain numbers – like 9 – Mr. 9 (27,000 hits) and expand on the number – there are “9 baseball players on a field,” it’s “in between 8 and 10.” Nine is the “last single digit.” These songs are great in the classroom and for children who are home-schooled. Listen to the album in the car and have your children watch the YouTube when they are home because there are very cute visuals to go along with the songs.
  • What song is your favorite off the album? The first one – ‘I’m Math-errific!’because it’s very positive about math and about how we are all ‘Math-errific! Math is all around us and it’s fun! “Math is such a part of our lives! One, two, three and four and five! Math gives us such good vibes! That’s why we’re math-errific!”
  • What other music have you been working on? I just finished my first baby song album – and my two little toddler grandsons love to dance and clap to the songs! It’s really cute! I have written many exercise songs. Sometimes I write satirical political songs – I try and find the humor in politics! Like when all of a sudden there were 23 people running for the democratic nomination, which inspired me to write, “Why Don’t you run for President?”
  • One of your songs on the mother who had octuplets went viral with about 10 million YouTube views. What are some of your most popular songs and music videos? I have 15 albums and my album about Princess Diana has sold the most copies. Also on youtube, I have thousands of hits on my Princess Diana songs. I wrote a musical about her, as I feel she was such a exceptional human being. Some of my exercise songs are very popular – ‘Shake it for NObesity’ is one and ‘My Workout Place’ is another. – Mr. Nine is very popular. I have over 100 youtube videos.
  • Where may people find your music? Itunes, Spotify – cdbaby.com – and I have many videos on youtube – just type in my name – Karen Sokolof Javitch – or the title of the song and they will come up. I have a website where you can find my songs – JMRProductions.com – named for my 3 kids – Jenny, Mark and Rachel.

About Karen Sokolof Javitch:

Besides Karen’s 15 albums, she has co-written 4 musicals and was the creator and co-host of a popular Omaha radio show, “It’s the Beat.” Her musicals include “Princess Diana the Musical,” “From Generation to Generation,” and “Love at the Café.” These shows have been performed in many cities in the United States. In addition, Ms. Javitch has raised over $350,000 for national and local charities with her original music.

Featured image via moage.com

Art

How Award Winning Math Professor Inspires Students And Family

Leave a comment

RAPID CITY, SD- Professor Travis Kowalski starts most days with a squiggle.

For the past eight years, the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology math professor has carried on a family tradition started by his father, who would ask the young Travis to make a squiggle on a piece of paper. From that squiggle, his father would create a drawing. Often, Kowalski’s father would give him a squiggle and the two would sit together drawing.

Image may contain: 1 person, eyeglasses

Nowadays, Kowalski uses a napkin and markers in his “squiggle game,” and the recipients are his two daughters – Liliana, 13, and Maia, 9. Kowalski says he started the tradition when Liliana was entering kindergarten, hoping the lunch napkin art would make her transition to school easier.

Each evening or early in the morning, Kowalski encouraged his oldest to draw a squiggle on a napkin. The next morning, he turned the squiggle into colorful drawings and slipped it into her lunch box. Once Maia arrived, Kowalski began doing the same for her. “She expected it,” he says.

It’s not exactly what most people expect from a math professor at an engineering and science university. But Kowalski, a Ph.D. who currently serves as the interim head of the Department of Mathematics at SD Mines, says math and art co-mingle perfectly.

His drawings range from a buffalo against a bright pink sky (drawn May 6, 2019) to an astronaut in space (Jan. 24, 2019), to Kermit the Frog (Dec. 7, 2018), to the composer Bach at his harpsichord (May 14, 2018). Kowalski posts both the starting squiggle and the finished product on his Facebook and Instagram pages.

The two social media platforms are filled with vibrant, colorful drawings often accompanied by clever taglines – a bear holding up a paw and asking, “I would like some salmon, please” and a praying mantis playing a video game under the title, “Playing Mantis.”

Known on campus for his colorful Hawaiian shirts and clever math-related ties, Kowalski is the professor whose office walls are covered with unique visual art. He’s the kind of professor who sneaks his labradoodle Cauchy, named after French mathematician Augustin-Louis Cauchy, into class the last day of the semester to play out an obscure (to the general audience at least) mathematics joke. He’s the math teacher who so passionately talks about the subject that even the least math-minded people can’t help but get excited.

Image may contain: 3 people

And he’s good at what he does in the classroom. So good that Kowalski was recently awarded the 2019 Burton W. Jones Award by the Mathematical Association of America. The award recognizes post-secondary level math instructors nationally who “foster student excitement about mathematics.”

“It’s cool and humbling to be part of that group,” he admits.

Donald Teets, a Ph.D. professor in the SD Mines math department, is a previous winner of the award and the person who nominated Kowalski. In his nomination, Teets writes, “He is, (in this writer’s opinion) the best teacher in a department devoted to teaching excellence.”

This is hardly the first recognition for Kowalski, Teets says. In 2014, Kowalski was awarded the Benard Ennenga Award, which honors one SD Mines faculty member each year for teaching excellence; and in 2017, he won the George Polya Award from the Math Association of America for his College Mathematics Journal article, “The Sine of a Single Degree.”

“His lecture based on ‘The Sine of a Single Degree’ is as good a mathematics lecture as you will ever see!” Teets wrote in his nomination.

Teets says the thing that makes Kowalski so good at this job is his enthusiasm, noting that students consistently rate him on classroom surveys as “the best math teacher I’ve ever had.” He’s “innovative,” constantly striving to engage his students and utilize technology into his teaching, Teets says. “Like Superman wears the big ‘S’ on his chest, Dr. Kowalski deserves a big ‘I’ for Innovator.”

As for Kowalski’s artistic talents, Teets is equally as effusive. “As a person who can barely draw recognizable stick figures, I am in awe of Travis’s artistic abilities.  It’s a great complement to his extraordinary skills in mathematics!” he says.

Kowalski grew up in California, raised by a draftsman father and a “crafty” stepmother. “My dad drew all of the time,” Kowalski says. “That was the home I grew up in. You drew.”

In college at University of California, Riverside, Kowalski majored in art. To finish off an academic requirement, he enrolled in Calculus 2. A good student in high school, he had already taken an advanced placement Calculus 1 class. He was class valedictorian, but “I worked hard at it. I was not a prodigy,” he says with a laugh. 

He still remembers the Riverside professor’s name who taught his first college math course – Albert Stralka. He “taught in a way I hadn’t seen before,” Kowalski says. “There were ideas behind the math.”

When he got an A in that class, the professor convinced him to take Calculus 3.

Next, the professor suggested he take topology, which is the study of geometric properties and spatial relations which are unaffected by the change of shape or size of figures. “It’s the geometry of shapes under change,” Kolwaski says. “That class blew my mind.”

The rest is history – after topology Kolwaski changed his major and embraced a love of mathematics. But he never left his art behind, and it’s important to understand that the two subjects go hand-in-hand, he says. “Half of mathematicians do what they do because they think it’s pretty,” he says of the geometry of math.  

As a math professor at SD Mines, Kolwaski admits that “I still like to sit and draw things, but I don’t have as much time anymore,” he says.

That’s where his morning squiggle drawings come in. 

Each one of Kowalski’s squiggles for his daughters takes about 15 to 30 minutes from start to finish. “The first part is to see something,” he says. He spins the napkin around, looking at the squiggle until he “sees” the picture that will emerge.

Mia tends to draw extremely elaborate squiggles, sometimes lobbying for a specific outcome – for instance a unicorn. Other times, his daughters will bring home requests from friends for specific drawings.

Liliana has saved all her napkins over the years, storing them in a plastic container in her room. That made it a little easier for Kowalski when she came to him recently to say, “What with my school schedule being so busy and my lunch break so short and closet so full of the ones you’ve already made me – which I love, thank you – I just don’t think you need to make me lunch napkins anymore.” Kowalski playfully posted her words on social media with an image from Boromir’s death from “Fellowship of the Rings” with arrows sticking from his heart.

Kowalski says his older daughter relented, most likely after an intervention from his wife, and is continuing to play the squiggle game. He’s glad, hoping that both of his daughters will always remember the squiggle game and maybe even carry it on with their own families one day.

“It’s definitely a great memory about my dad,” he says. “Hopefully it will be the same for them.”  For the Silo, Lynn Taylor Rick.

Sci-Tech

New App Demystifies Coding For Kids

Leave a comment

NEW YORK, NY (PRWEB)- According to the White House, by 2018, 51 percent of STEM jobs will be in computer science-related fields. However, the number of tech employees has not increased along with the number of jobs available. Why? The answer is simple: lack of relevant education. The White House maintains that just one quarter of K-12 schools offer high-quality computer science with programming and coding. In addition, in 2016, the PEW Research Center reported that only 17% of adults believed they were “digitally ready.” Technology is changing the way that we live and work, and it’s happening fast. So how do we ensure that individuals (especially girls and women) are digitally literate?

In my new interview below with C.M. Rubin (founder of CMRubinWorld), Derek Lo says he started Py because he wanted to demystify “coding”. His app does this by making coding fun. The program also avoids using any programming jargon until the learner is ready. Lo states that “gamification isn’t a hindrance to learning—-it accelerates it.” He further notes that coding “instills a greater aptitude for systematic thinking and logical decision making.” Lo recently partnered with the not for profit Girls Who Code to further reduce the gender gap and “change people’s image of who a coder is.”

Coding in language children understand

“We specifically write our content using language that even young children can understand.” — Derek Lo

Why were 600,000 high-paying tech jobs unfilled in 2015 in the United States alone, or is the better question: Is technology developing faster than humans can learn to handle it?

When we look at diversity, things only get worse. In 2015, 22 percent of students taking the AP Computer Science exam were girls while 13 percent were African-American or Latino. These statistics are not U.S. specific; in 2015, Australia reported that only 28 percent of ICT jobs were held by women.

Coding has always been regarded as a mysterious field, something Derek Lo, co-founder of the new application “Py”, wants to change. Launched in 2016, the application offers interactive courses on everything from Python to iOS development. The “unique value proposition,” as Lo puts it, has been a revolutionary success. The fun-oriented application has so far resulted in over 100,000 downloads on both iTunes and Google Play.

Most parents frown when kids use their phones at the dinner table, but what if the kids were learning to code over Sunday roast? “Ok, so maybe not the Sunday roast, but seriously, could a more accessible and fun coding application make all the difference?”

The Global Search for Education is excited to welcome one of Py’s founders, Derek Lo, to discuss how Py’s revolutionary approach is literally making coding cool.

Coding creates websites but also stimulates thought

“Coding can provide people with the awesome ability of being able to create tangible things like websites and apps. It also instills less tangible things like a greater aptitude for systematic thinking and logical decision making.” — Derek Lo

People say education today is often treated as a business and that individual students’ needs have not been prioritized enough. As the number of qualified applicants increases, can individualized learning tools, such as Py, help today’s generations remain competent in our globalized world, even with “broken” education systems?

Yes. As college acceptance rates decline, more people will need alternatives for learning career-essential skills, and we believe Py will be a big part of that. Using machine learning algorithms, we’re able to adapt the user experience based on prior skill and behavior within the app, creating a tailored curriculum. Having a personal tutor in your pocket that knows how you learn and what you should be learning is powerful and why we are investing in personalization.

Py App On Google Play

Py provides its users with a simple and easy platform while many other coding applications (e.g. Solo Learn) have opted for more traditional and serious lesson plans. Does making learning applications appear more serious fuel the conception that coding is a hard and scary thing to learn? Are we over-complicating the field of coding and making it seem inaccessible for people or should students really be this wary of programming?

One of the reasons that my co-founder and I started Py is to demystify “coding”. We make it easy by making it fun. When you’re dragging pretty blocks around and pressing colorful buttons, it doesn’t feel like work. Yet users are still soaking up all the same knowledge they would be by slogging through a boring textbook. We also intentionally avoid programming jargon until the learner is ready. A good example is when we teach users about loops—-we use words like “repeat” instead of “iterate”. Almost all of Py’s courses are focused on teaching the fundamental concepts using simple language and in an interactive fashion.

Also, many people are scared away from learning how to code because they hear from friends that computer science is such a difficult major in school. An important thing to realize is that there’s a big difference between theoretical computer science and making a simple website. An art major might not need to understand Dijkstra’s algorithm, but would greatly benefit from knowing a bit of HTML and CSS.

Getting Young Adults Interested In Coding

“We’re extremely excited about helping to change people’s image (and self-image) of who a coder is and actively encourage more girls to get into coding.” — Derek Lo

What would you say to skeptics who question whether a game-like application like Py can truly help people learn how to code properly?

Gamification isn’t a hindrance to learning—-it accelerates it. By keeping you excited and engaged, Py teaches you better than if you got bored or zoned out. When you’re having fun, you actually learn faster and better.

Another way to phrase this question might be, “Even if Py is fun, do you walk away having learned something from it?” The answer is yes, definitely. We’re very data-driven, constantly improving our courses by analyzing our users’ progress. We can see (and track) real progress in our users’ ability to understand everything from basic semantics to high-level algorithms and design principles.

Do you think Py’s game-like surface allows younger generations to become more involved with coding?

Yes. We specifically write our content using language that even young children can understand. In fact, a parent emailed us just the other day telling us he was using Py to teach his 10-year old son Python! Currently our target demographic is definitely a bit older than that though. We think of Py as the learn-to-code solution for the SnapChat generation.

What general skills does coding teach kids/ young adults?

Coding can provide people with the awesome ability of being able to create tangible things like websites and apps. It also instills less tangible things like a greater aptitude for systematic thinking and logical decision making.

Understand Algorithm Before Typing It

“Once you understand how an algorithm works, typing it out should be an afterthought. The important thing is to understand it—once you do, it’s yours forever.” — Derek Lo

Py has recently partnered with Girls Who Code. Why do you think coding has been branded throughout history as a ‘male’ profession and how do you hope to eliminate this gender gap?

Historically some of the most important computer scientists are women. Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper are considered pioneers of programming. Stereotypes aside, men and women are obviously equally capable of becoming great software engineers. We’re extremely excited about helping to change people’s image (and self-image) of who a coder is and actively encourage more girls to get into coding. We’re huge fans of Girls Who Code and we’re so excited to provide them free premium subscriptions for some of their students.

When we think of coding, we mostly envision computer screens, yet we tend to use our phones more often than we do our computers. How does Py bridge the gap between using a computer screen as opposed to learning how to code on smaller devices? Is the coding world shifting to using smartphones or is coding still a generally ‘computer’ based field?

People actually don’t need to type lots of code to learn the concepts necessary to become great programmers. We’ve built interaction types like “fill-in-the-blank” that let users quickly edit code on the fly without any typing. Recently we’ve also created a custom keyboard that allows users to type real code on their phones in a friction-less way. This is great for short programs and practicing the fundamentals, and it’s how we’re making the transition from computer to phone and vice versa easier. Applying this knowledge to create a website or app does still primarily take place on computers. But the world is seeing a wave of new mobile learning applications, and I think we’re at the forefront of that trend.

How do you envision the world of coding changing in the next 15-20 years? How will Py keep up with these changes in the field?

Coding will become less about rote memorization of basic syntax and more about high-level understanding of what’s really going on. At a minimum, programming languages have morphed from low-level (shifting bits and allocating memory) to high-level (abstract data structures and functional programming), from obtuse (assembly, machine code) to human friendly (Python, Swift).

That’s why Py focuses on high-level concepts. Once you understand how an algorithm works, typing it out should be an afterthought. The important thing is to understand it—once you do, it’s yours forever.

CM Rubin and Derek Lo
(l) C. M. Rubin & (r) Derek Lo

 

(All photos are courtesy of CMRubinWorld except featured image by J. Barker)

For the Silo, David Wine /CMRubinWorld with contributions by Zita Petrahai.