Projects or matrices

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.

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

New books, old books - they sure look the same

Lately I have looked at a lot of 6-12 textbooks and websites.  And one thought keeps crossing my mind -- these are nearly the same as before.  The only difference is the order of some things.  So the CCSS has theoretically changed textbooks and teaching (or will) but in reality the books are the same.  They are so utterly close to the previous books that I am having a hard time justifying buying new books at $90 per pop and I am probably going to buy one edition back, used texts for $10 each.  Cause the books are not different enough to help a teacher who is unsure of himself/herself with math and the CCSS.

And isn't that the real statement - a book cannot lead a weak teacher; I don't care what book I have, I typically use 2-3 in each of my courses.  I teach conceptually using a combo of large projects, daily practice and non-negotiable skills -- the book is not my math bible, it is a nice guide.   But for teachers that use a textbook as a bible, the current selection will not change their teaching and won't make the CCSS anymore achieveable than the last edition.  I am not sure any textbook can.

As an ending comment lets just say publishers have not found the holy grail for the CCSS based on the books I have reviewed.

Curriculum Mapping

So we had in-service this past week and used the time to work on curriculum mapping.  Working on a plan to teach the Common Core Standards (CCSS) through out our K-12 building. Aligning what we are teaching/how we teach to the new national standards.  It seems like time well spent because we finally found some software that allows a teacher to not only plan by unit and topic but also includes the ability to have learning targets (the daily "stuff" of teaching).

Thus curriculum mapping goes from an overall tool to a daily tool, so as I work on lessons I can build them there in the software (BYOC, is the software).  I can store links, sheets, ideas all to a Learning topic (versus a unit).  This then becomes a way for me to create plans that work by learning goals.  I am excited because curriculum mapping at unit and topic level just becomes a way to say you checked against standards, the previous program we used did just unit and topic and I rarely looked at it.  I was always too busy making lessons.  Now I can make those lessons in the curriculum mapping software and then that can be looked at and refined the next year.  These learning topics (the daily lessons) are tied to unit and topic with standards and makes me really focus on the standards.  Tie that standard focus to the new mathematical practices and there is a framework to really become proficient at CCSS.  My hope is to finally have a place to do continuous improvement on a lesson!

This hopefully will be the tool I use to tie daily teaching to lessons.  My goal is to quickly rough in the topics/units into the software so I can really work on learning targets.  Then I can decide the best way to teach concepts for understanding & high level thinking.

Is this "pie-in-the-sky?"  Maybe...  But at least the software has a way to look at it and have it be useful on daily basis....   Because the only way to get better is one lesson at a time....