Posts
From Ridgewood NJ, "Nowthatshockey" has posted a new video from their BOE.
Out of the mouths of (fill in blank). This guy states he doesn't want parents coming to meetings telling the Board what are the problems with TERC. He just wants to know what are the problems with TERC. He acknowledges there has been documentation of what's going on in a 3rd grade classroom. But that's a 3rd grade classroom. No one has told him how these students will be unprepared when they leave the school in fifth or sixth grade. Uh, what'm I missing here? Didn't they quote Wilfried Schmidt at one point, and Jim Milgram, and get testimony from parents who are engineers, talking about how TERC does not provide proper background for advancement and learning in math? No amount of evidence short of removing him from the board will convince him of anything he doesn't want to be convinced of. Even removing him from the Board will not do it.
13 comments:
I can't get this to play - AAAAUGGGHHH!
Is there any way to get this into a different format. I can't play it & my computer tells me there's no plugin I can get...
Here's another link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oq2FUSuSq4
I think it's the one you were looking for (if you didn't already find it.)
Right. I had it posted earlier, and it worked fine, but something happened and it no longer appears.
Thanks.
oh my gosh
I'm watching this guy
one word:
IMPEACHMENT
What was the example from 3rd grade?
Does anyone know?
if this guy doesn't want parents coming to meetings to talk about TERC he better get rid of TERC
It's healthy to have a perspective!
Is it supposed to cut out in the middle of his talk?
Other than liking to hear his own voice, it sounds like he just wants more information. He wants the "broad context" of the problem. He sounds like he is new to the issue and can't quite figure out why there are such strong views on both sides. He has no basis for judging the data that he is getting. What might seem like a slam-dunk presentation to us just raises more fundamental questions for him. Unless I missed something, this is an opportunity for parents to educate him. Give him what he wants; more information. Teach him that algebra in 8th grade should be an ASSUMED GOAL in the early grades for ALL KIDS. Teach him that mastery is the road to true understanding. Teach him that many more kids could do well in math. Perhaps the parents have tried and he is just unable to add 2 + 2.
An education writer for our big state newspaper has trouble because she knows and respects many educators. It's hard for her to believe that they could be so wrong. At my son's school, this thinking translates into giving some kids more advanced math (usually in 7th or 8th grade), but the majority still gets Everyday Math.
The argument now seems to be that reform math is not more rigorous than programs like Saxon or Singapore, it's just "better" for most kids. They just cannot seem to understand that the problem is the math curriculum, not the fact that there are a few kids who are capable of more. So the capable (or tutored) kids get to make the transition to good math in high school and the rest go nowhere. Many of the kids left behind could do so much more, but the schools cannot or will not see it as an issue with the curriculum. At best, they will talk about balance.
The fundamental issue is competence.
1. Math is cumulative.
2. Math skills in the early grades are extremely important.
3. Obtaining these skills is not difficult.
4. Lower schools have little to no understanding of math.
5. Most teachers don't like or are poor in math.
6. They have low expectations.
7. They should not be selecting a math curriculum.
8. They will never admit that.
It is quite a conceit to think that pedagogy requires no content knowledge and skills.
It's hard to make an argument which basically says that the other side is so wrong. We're not talking balance here.
This is an opportunity for parents to educate him.
Sorry, but whenever I hear the words "this is an opportunity" I keep thinking about the time I had a geometry teacher in high school who wouldn't do a thing except assign problems and have us explain them at the board. When I complained to the head of the math department that I can learn more from reading the book than attending her class he said "Then this is a wonderful opportunity for you to learn!"
Parents have had plenty of opportunity to educate this guy and they have in testimony to the Board. He has heard all of it, and elected to ignore all of it by moving the goal posts. If the lesson in Grade 3 is presented, he'll say "Yes, but how does this fit into the big picture? Maybe kids catch on later." If you show him what kids in 3rd grade Singapore are learning vs the TERC 3rd graders, he'll say "Yes, but are Singapore students as creative as ours?" And so on and so forth. It's a waste of time trying to educate him. He doesn't want to be educated. He just wants to be right and he wants to have his way, parents and kids be damned.
OK. I just saw the whole thing (not cut in the middle). That guy really likes to hear himself talk. He thinks of himself as the great mediator - all process, no content.
He wants people to get together without inflexible positions. He wants people to "have perspective" and not have one solution for all. They have so many kids in the district and what might be best for your child may not be best for others. (This approach marginalizes criticism and allows almost anything to be a valid approach.) Of course, the schools had no problem with forcing TERC on all.
Blah, blah, blah.
There are no absolutes. There is no right or wrong. The answer must be somewhere in the middle. This is the biggest cop-out in the world.
OK. How about this for balance. Offer both curricula. Let the parents decide.
For "not trying to be dense", he does a really good job.
"For 'not trying to be dense', he does a really good job."
Different people have different talents. Some people are just naturals and can make things look completely effortless.
Post a Comment