Posts
SO, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS FOR THE STUDENTS TO LIKE MATH. It is more important to like math than to learn math, according to my school. This sounds like a familiar theme among reformers. When you take this approach to education, it seems inevitable that standards will drop.
I’m skeptical about Think Math!, to say the least. They insist that they provide abundant practice, including “lots of computational practice embedded in what may look to someone like a free exploration”. Hmm, that should be interesting.
Overall, the rhetoric on their website alerts me to be on the lookout for the usual suspects of reform math - excessive unguided discovery, group work, spiraling, skipping around and success for all. And, I’ve already been
I will also be looking out for the good parts of Think Math! I hope I find them.
20 comments:
I encounter this point of view constantly and have for many years in college advising and course selection. The general rule is "major in something you like," or "take courses you're interested in." I don't suggest a regimen that's boring and awful for the sake of it, but I've always advised students to take classes that matter. Though my academic career was in the social sciences, calculus and physics were far more important to my development than the required courses in my curricula.
I feel like a bitter 90-year old saying this, but I wish there was far less emphasis on fun in education. What the proponents of programs like Think Math! seem not to understand is that knowing a subject to a high degree - and having an excellent teacher get you there - is far more fun than a curriculum that is little more than anarchy with a safety net.
And, I’ve already been [assured] forewarned that all lessons will include letters sent home to parents.
we will all be looking forward to this!
Hi Matthew!
This is one of my regrets. I went to incredible colleges (Wellesley & Dartmouth) and took courses I liked.
As a result I'm horribly undereducated.
E.g.: I took a history course on the American west, but no course on the American Revolution or the Civil War or the Great Depression or anything else having to do with American history.
I've been trying to make up for this ever since.
Apparently Nation at Risk talked about this to some extent:
A Nation at Risk argued that much of America’s decline in academic achievement could be traced to the “cafeteria-style curriculum” or “curricular smorgasbord” offered to high-school students. The report said that the presence of so many nonacademic courses in the curriculum—such as preparation for adulthood, off-campus work experiences, and physical and health education—was compromising America’s commitment to high-quality academics.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3353711.html
And I think The Shopping Mall High School by Powell is supposed to be good...
The other issue that just doesn't seem to register is that people's interests aren't fixed.
Really good teachers and courses can create an interest in students who didn't have one before.
The middle school has some extremely good science teachers, and when kids are in their classes they're suddenly very interested in science.
There's one teacher who's so good that I think she's probably confusing the parents.
When their kids are in her class they all want to be doctors or scientists!
(I'm not sure that's true, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were. I've now had maybe 3 parents tell me their kids want to be doctors or scientists when they grow up ---- all 3 are in this teacher's class!)
Christopher's science teacher was so good that C. spent the entire year telling me what he'd learned in science.
One time when he was sick he spent his day on the sofa watching science programming.
I had a high school math teacher who was so good I thought I'd major in math. And I did.
really????
your math major happened because of your teacher?
The general rule is "major in something you like," or "take courses you're interested in."
I had a funny time at uni when I went with another girl to talk to some seven formers about university. We persistently said the opposite of each other, eg, she'd stay "Live at home, you save so much money" and I'd say "Live away from home if you can possibly afford it".
She gave your repeated advice about maths courses. My advice was
="keep taking maths courses - they keep your options open. Never believe a university employee who tells you that you don't need to take a maths course". (A couple of friends had been burned that way).
The cafeteria-style curriculum is a good metaphor. Not only are there too many choices in high schools, but the "eat what you want" buffet is even worse in college.
Post-secondary education is far from regimented beyond the most basic graduation/major requirements. Too many kids come out of college with an intellect that's a combination of Augustus Gloop's physique and Veruca Salt's attitude - in large part due to the "study what you like, study what you want" school of advising.
Sometimes what you enjoy isn't what's valuable and vice versa. It's important to bite the bullet here and there to make sure you get the full benefit of a college education. I used to call it "Tough vs. Fluff."
I know more than a few students who are in their 8th year of paying off student loans and are pretty pissed that they're still paying for 18th Century Siberian Basketweaving. Cutting the check each month would be a bit more palatable if it was paying the bill from Quantum Physics.
Really good teachers and courses can create an interest in students who didn't have one before.
The middle school has some extremely good science teachers, and when kids are in their classes they're suddenly very interested in science.
My middle school (it was a jr. high then) had amazing teachers. My science teacher (Mr. Okano) had such high expectations of the students in his class and we worked hard not to disappoint him. He was strict, demanding and brilliant. While I didn't become a scientist, I sure bet some of my classmates did. That's the power of good teaching. That's what it's supposed to be about.
. . . a curriculum that is little more than anarchy with a safety net.
Yes, that paints a vivid picture of what reform math has become in many schools.
I know more than a few students who are in their 8th year of paying off student loans and are pretty pissed that they're still paying for 18th Century Siberian Basketweaving. Cutting the check each month would be a bit more palatable if it was paying the bill from Quantum Physics.
As a parent, I will resist dipping into my retirement account to pay for basketweaving classes. Or, for remedial math classes.
I’ve experienced it myself and observed through my children that a teacher’s ability to engage the student in what might be considered a dull subject is critical to learning. Yet, the theme I’ve heard from my school is that the fluffy books with lots of pictures are essential for engaging today’s students. It seems ironic, but the teachers seem to be downplaying their own role.
Just recently, my husband and I were discussing how some of our own teachers inspired us to work harder. We’re still waiting for our son to experience that. Is it because he’s bit of a slacker, or does it have to do with low expectations? I don’t know. (Although, he probably has higher self esteem than I did at his age. The latest I read is that we should blame Mr. Rogers
for this problem.)
My advice was ="keep taking maths courses - they keep your options open.
absolutely
i'm sick no one ever told me this (or that i didn't figure it out myself)
I know more than a few students who are in their 8th year of paying off student loans and are pretty pissed that they're still paying for 18th Century Siberian Basketweaving.
I'm not going to tell you how many Women's Studies courses I took.
Actually, it may have been only 1 or perhaps 2.
Which was 1 or 2 too many.
My middle school (it was a jr. high then) had amazing teachers. My science teacher (Mr. Okano) had such high expectations of the students in his class and we worked hard not to disappoint him. He was strict, demanding and brilliant. While I didn't become a scientist, I sure bet some of my classmates did. That's the power of good teaching. That's what it's supposed to be about.
I think we're going to be in a bit of a lull as far as this kind of teacher goes, primarily because of demographics.
Young teachers will have to grow a bit older, probably, before they can inspire kids that way.
The teacher at our middle school who makes everyone want to be a doctor is middle aged.
C's teacher, who was excellent, is in her early 30s, I'd say - she's having her first baby right about now.
She was excellent, but she may still have been too young to cause middle school kids to want to be scientists because of her....
Not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised.
This reminds me of my neighbor in L.A., a very short woman, who told me that her law firm only put the "gray hairs" on the top cases. Major clients want middle aged men WITH GRAY HAIR.
anarchy with a safety net
!!!!!!
I’ve experienced it myself and observed through my children that a teacher’s ability to engage the student in what might be considered a dull subject is critical to learning. Yet, the theme I’ve heard from my school is that the fluffy books with lots of pictures are essential for engaging today’s students. It seems ironic, but the teachers seem to be downplaying their own role.
I know!
It's strange!
Of course, I guess if ed schools are now telling teachers to be "guides on the side," that's not exactly telling them to be Mr. Chips.
Post a Comment