So I spent 12 years working as an Engineer - designing packaging equipment, doing projects, managing people -- high level responsibility - pay matched. And guess what? I never did matrices - not one single one. Yet it is a requirement for high school now in most Algebra 2 courses? Does that make your typical Algebra 2 student better that they know Cramer's rule? Or are we (teachers) just making ourselves feel good by having students pump and dump (memorize and forget) one more thing.
Don't get me wrong - I think it has a place in high school - PreCalculus, a class for students who want a STEM career but if I have to really make students understand matrices in Algebra 2- that will take at least 5 class periods - nearly 3% of my year.
I can teach about stocks and its math, loans or how to use math to solve open ended problems - but that takes time. So.... how valuable are matrices? Because choices need to be made, and as a group we are picking matrices.
So are matrices more important than stocks (401k 403b anyone?) or loans (buying a house and car is a little more common than matrices)? The point is we have a limited commodity - time!
There is simply not enough time. And if I hear one more expert answer my question of how we are supposed to do it all - say "When you have a unified K-12 curriculum it will happen." - I may seriously crap myself.
I love matrices- there is really vision for programming and problem solving with Cramer'r Rule. Looking for patterns - using to simplify repetitive problems - but if you do it in 5 days in Algebra 2 do you make it to the level of discovery and struggle students need for growth as learners?
I keep thinking the experts forgot we have only 180 days when planning my curriculum - which I lose at least 15 a year to trips, etc. (and those trips need to happen). So in 165 days in 4 years I have to teach and lead student's discovery of math's interconnections and uses - a standard every few days. Ugh.
Now common core haters should not be smiling - we need a national set of standards and math does need multiple solutions not just memorization of algorithms. We just need to make sure what was published in 2010 is not written in stone. We need to allow for creativity and paradigm shifting thoughts -- they should be reviewed and revised every few years. That is real progress.
When I was in industry my simple goal was slow constant sustainable growth - I never said lets be 15% better next year. We moved for 2-3% growth year after year - and once you do that you get long term amazing results. There is too much change too quickly - half the initiatives I have seen in my limited time of 9 years never got the chance to work - not enough time or belief by anyone that they would work.
So there - projects or matrices -- it is really the question of how we make problem solvers.
Showing posts with label Common. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common. Show all posts
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Saturday, August 2, 2014
CCSS in jeopardy in Wisconsin
So Scott Walker has called on the legislature to repeal the CCSS, and put in its place our own rigorous standards, "set by the people of Wisconsin." A politcal move - perhaps/surely, a move for the good of education - doubtful, a move we should make - I don't think so.
To be clear I am not a CCSS fan - there are too many standards in high school and we drive down too much math too soon in middle school. We are not training teachers properly and it is causing problems. But....
We need to realize, that Wisconsin is not single nation but a state in this nation which is a collection of states that make a republic, a democracy. And it is the populate that makes that democracy - an educated populate.
And we, the teachers in all states, need to have a guideline that we run to - that is the CCSS. Now am I hoping for version 2.0 (we should have 2.0 done already and should be looking for 3.0). But just calling on Wisconsin to remove themselves from the CCSS is not the solution -- we have made 3 years of investment, we should be tweaking - not throwing it out.
Personally - it is hardest for me when I get the emails saying "see, another program started and not finished." And they may be correct. Heck, we did not even get to testing (not that standardized tests prove anything).
And here we are quickly moving down the path of making the ROD teachers correct (ROD = Retired-On-Duty). The "We have seen this before" gang - no need to change it will go away. No need to use data or worry about improving. [Lucky my school is void of RODs]
It is a sad for education, it is sad for our political system -- we are making children's education a pawn of politics. We need to stop having new documents and programs and just have continous improvement on what is there. We need standards - but they should be living - not cut in stone.
But here we go again...
http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-calls-on-legislature-to-repeal-common-core-in/article_1db9265d-2257-5a43-9603-3e3d73b1c3a7.html
To be clear I am not a CCSS fan - there are too many standards in high school and we drive down too much math too soon in middle school. We are not training teachers properly and it is causing problems. But....
We need to realize, that Wisconsin is not single nation but a state in this nation which is a collection of states that make a republic, a democracy. And it is the populate that makes that democracy - an educated populate.
And we, the teachers in all states, need to have a guideline that we run to - that is the CCSS. Now am I hoping for version 2.0 (we should have 2.0 done already and should be looking for 3.0). But just calling on Wisconsin to remove themselves from the CCSS is not the solution -- we have made 3 years of investment, we should be tweaking - not throwing it out.
Personally - it is hardest for me when I get the emails saying "see, another program started and not finished." And they may be correct. Heck, we did not even get to testing (not that standardized tests prove anything).
And here we are quickly moving down the path of making the ROD teachers correct (ROD = Retired-On-Duty). The "We have seen this before" gang - no need to change it will go away. No need to use data or worry about improving. [Lucky my school is void of RODs]
It is a sad for education, it is sad for our political system -- we are making children's education a pawn of politics. We need to stop having new documents and programs and just have continous improvement on what is there. We need standards - but they should be living - not cut in stone.
But here we go again...
http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-calls-on-legislature-to-repeal-common-core-in/article_1db9265d-2257-5a43-9603-3e3d73b1c3a7.html
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Open Letter to the Wisconsin Committee Taking Comments on the CCSS
To the Select Committee reviewing the CCSS in Wisconsin:
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I am a father of 3 children (13,12 & 10 years old) and a second-career teacher just starting my eighth year of teaching High School math. I spent my first dozen years of my career as an engineer and manager in the private sector, which gives me a different view of the standards. As a nation we must embrace the ideal of making students who are college and career ready, and while the CCSS are not perfect, they are a step in the right direction.
I have spent the last few years working with the CCSS in mathematics and have formed some solid opinions:
1) Being from industry I knew some states' graduates were not as strong as others, some sort of national guideline is most likely needed. Many countries that we trail in education have a national set of standards. And anytime a small group forms a large set of standards there will be problems and complaints - as a nation we need to work together to move forward.
2) The core in math is strong K-6 but in my opinion simply has too many standards in High School, thus these individual standards take precious time from class room teachers to teach problem solving, deeper discovery, reasonsing, etc (the mathematical practices). But the practices are a strength of the CCSS which can be built upon and the standards will need to evolve.
3) We try to move too fast in education (the CCSS being a great example of too fast). We should move on a continuous improvement path; yet education moves with an all or nothing mentality. That is why the testing in 2014-2015 will be disastrous, we are trying to be 20% better in 2 years versus 2% better year after year. Whether the CCSS can survive the poltical "firestorm" that is coming (or is here) is an unanswered question.
And finally, 4) The standards are plenty rigorous and we need to focus on the practices in the CCSS.
As a parent and educator I worry about the CCSS being a list of standards to check off, and since the list is long deeming it rigorous. I worry about the politics and the desire for instant results derailing the opportunity for there to be true progress with the CCSS. I do not believe the CCSS are perfect, far from it, but it is a decent starting point.
And the CCSS should be a starting point for Wisconsin. While I feel the HS math standards are overloaded on topics, I think they provide a framework that can be used to move Wisconsin and the nation forward in education. It is the practices we should be focusing on - problem solving, tenacity, the ability to read, justify and revise. And that is why the CCSS should not be dismantled but allowed to evolve, I do believe the mathematical practices to be the strength of the CCSS.
In the end I support the CCSS with its flaws, because I view it as a first step in a continuous improvement process. We need national standards, and I feel the practices are good. I am hoping that as time passes we can correct some of the "mile wide, inch deep" issues and in the end have better students who are ready for college and career.
Scott Anderson
Math Instructor
Juda High School
Juda, Wisconsin
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I am a father of 3 children (13,12 & 10 years old) and a second-career teacher just starting my eighth year of teaching High School math. I spent my first dozen years of my career as an engineer and manager in the private sector, which gives me a different view of the standards. As a nation we must embrace the ideal of making students who are college and career ready, and while the CCSS are not perfect, they are a step in the right direction.
I have spent the last few years working with the CCSS in mathematics and have formed some solid opinions:
1) Being from industry I knew some states' graduates were not as strong as others, some sort of national guideline is most likely needed. Many countries that we trail in education have a national set of standards. And anytime a small group forms a large set of standards there will be problems and complaints - as a nation we need to work together to move forward.
2) The core in math is strong K-6 but in my opinion simply has too many standards in High School, thus these individual standards take precious time from class room teachers to teach problem solving, deeper discovery, reasonsing, etc (the mathematical practices). But the practices are a strength of the CCSS which can be built upon and the standards will need to evolve.
3) We try to move too fast in education (the CCSS being a great example of too fast). We should move on a continuous improvement path; yet education moves with an all or nothing mentality. That is why the testing in 2014-2015 will be disastrous, we are trying to be 20% better in 2 years versus 2% better year after year. Whether the CCSS can survive the poltical "firestorm" that is coming (or is here) is an unanswered question.
And finally, 4) The standards are plenty rigorous and we need to focus on the practices in the CCSS.
As a parent and educator I worry about the CCSS being a list of standards to check off, and since the list is long deeming it rigorous. I worry about the politics and the desire for instant results derailing the opportunity for there to be true progress with the CCSS. I do not believe the CCSS are perfect, far from it, but it is a decent starting point.
And the CCSS should be a starting point for Wisconsin. While I feel the HS math standards are overloaded on topics, I think they provide a framework that can be used to move Wisconsin and the nation forward in education. It is the practices we should be focusing on - problem solving, tenacity, the ability to read, justify and revise. And that is why the CCSS should not be dismantled but allowed to evolve, I do believe the mathematical practices to be the strength of the CCSS.
In the end I support the CCSS with its flaws, because I view it as a first step in a continuous improvement process. We need national standards, and I feel the practices are good. I am hoping that as time passes we can correct some of the "mile wide, inch deep" issues and in the end have better students who are ready for college and career.
Scott Anderson
Math Instructor
Juda High School
Juda, Wisconsin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)