As I started reading this chapter I found myself disagreeing with the text. I don't know that I agree with dropping advanced algebra as a requirement because some find it too difficult and discouraging. On that note, I must admit that math has always been my favorite subject, because I am good at it and enjoy problem solving.
So, I passed the book to my husband, a mechanical engineer, and had him read that section. His thoughts:
"Students don't need to learn more advanced algorithms that they'll never use, even as engineers or scientists..." As an engineer I use advanced algebra and calculus multiple times a day. Algebra teaches your brain how to think and use logic. The author suggests students spend more time learning "simple skills" while tackling issues like "gas prices". When I read this I immediately thought of an algebra problem to decide if premium or regular gas is more cost effective for your vehicle, depending on the difference in mileage vs. cost. The author does not understand algebra, so he does not understand its value.
I do, however agree with the section on simplifying math standards. I feel like there is so much to teach, and I don't have time to go into depth on any of it. I did a long-term sub job in a 3rd grade classroom last fall and taught a lot about patterns. Then this fall when I started teaching first grade I realized that it is pretty much the same lessons that the third graders were doing. Our school has been using Math out of the Box for several years now, and I imagine that patterns are also taught in second grade, so why, when I taught the pattern lesson to 3rd graders last year did they not have a clue what I was talking about? It's all the same vocabulary: core, elements, repeating, etc. Why do we reteach this every year, rather than teaching it thoroughly once. If they really learn it, we won't have to teach it every year. I agree with Schmidt where he says, "need to focus on a small enough number of topics so that teachers can spend, not days, on them."
Patterns ARE taught in 2nd grade and I found it very discouraging because they do learn it year after year. I have found ways to take patterns to a deeper and more numerical level, but my students were not excited to hear we were learning about patterns. I could see that teaching patterns to solve problems like repeated addition or subtraction etc.
ReplyDeleteIt just seems like there is so much to teach that we can't go into enough depth on any of it for kids to have a real understanding that sticks, and doesn't have to be retaught, and as quickly forgotten. In first grade I am really working number sense, because without that, nothing will make sense. But I also have to spend a lot of time on other things such as patterns, geometry, time, measurement, money, etc.
ReplyDelete