Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I started kindergarten in 1960 and graduated HS in 73. I heard the term "new math" in elementary school, but we spent a large part of every day in elementary school on basic arithmetic. Through 6th grade, we studied addition, subtration, multiplication and division including decimals and fractions. We never had geometry or pre-algebra or even negative numbers. I was placed in an advance math class in 7th grade and this was considered "new math." It was actually pre-algebra. Many students were still doing basic arithmetic in 7th grade.
I think the advantage to this old approach is the majority of kids thoroughly learned basic math that they will use every day. Many average kids today can't multiply or divide without a calculator. Many average students don't understand the concepts of multiplication or division, and don't have a clue how to do problems that include fractions. Many of these kids have been thoroughly confused by new teaching approaches and having to learn geometry and pre-algebra starting in 2nd grade. We also got much more practice since we were in the same room all day and did not have daily recess and specials classes like art, music, computers, library and phys. education. There were many days that we spent over half the day on math.
It's not a matter of which classes you get, it's a matter of the teaching method. It's totally possible to introduce geometry and some algebra concepts in elementary school. We got Venn diagrams and set theory in grade school, and I started before you did.
It's not a matter of which classes you get, it's a matter of the teaching method. It's totally possible to introduce geometry and some algebra concepts in elementary school. We got Venn diagrams and set theory in grade school, and I started before you did.
We also had music and art classes.
It's a matter of basic pedagogy that went astray.
It may be "totally possible to introduce geometry and some algebra concepts in elementary school," but why bother? We mix kids with a wide range of abilities in elementary school and the top students will understand more advance concepts and the bottom students will struggle with addition and subtraction. With enough practice, most of the students will learn basic arithmetic. What does this have to do with teaching method? Newer teaching methods have complicated learning basic concepts. Ask any parent who has tried to help their child with homework.
By middle school, students should be grouped according to their ability in different subjects. Some students will advance quickly through the math curriculum and shouldn't be held back. My son was never challenged with any math course he took all through elementary, HS and college. He could have handled more advanced math in elementary school, but did it really make a difference that he was not taught geometry and algebra in elementary school?
It may be "totally possible to introduce geometry and some algebra concepts in elementary school," but why bother?
The basic concept of a variable can be introduced in elementary school reading. When you read a story and the name of a character changes that is a variable. A variable is something that can be changed, such as a characteristic or value. If you start off early, kids can learn these basics and not have a big problem later on.
Geometry and algebra are actually fun and interesting when introduced in the early grades. It doesn't have to be sophisticated, but shapes are all around you. Why do you want to dumb kids down by teaching only addition, subtraction, multiplication and division and teaching those in ways that don't allow kids to understand what they are doing?
I started kindergarten in 1960 and graduated HS in 73. I heard the term "new math" in elementary school, but we spent a large part of every day in elementary school on basic arithmetic. Through 6th grade, we studied addition, subtration, multiplication and division including decimals and fractions. We never had geometry or pre-algebra or even negative numbers.
This was, basically, the same education I received, except that "new math" was ushered in in fourth grade. I was several years behind you, though. It was far too young.
Quote:
I was placed in an advance math class in 7th grade and this was considered "new math." It was actually pre-algebra. Many students were still doing basic arithmetic in 7th grade.
I was, but perhaps by then, "new math" had been seen for what it was and shelved.
Quote:
I think the advantage to this old approach is the majority of kids thoroughly learned basic math that they will use every day.
^Absolutely
Quote:
Many average kids today can't multiply or divide without a calculator. Many average students don't understand the concepts of multiplication or division, and don't have a clue how to do problems that include fractions.
My biggest gripe. The foundations must be laid and mastered, and then advance to the problem solving.
"If all or our teachers were excellent we would not be faced with failing schools!"
That was the comment from a friend of mine who was talking about the problem with schools and education today.
I tried to tell him that it was not really the teachers fault but the fault of unmotivated students, poverty, ignorance, teachers unions, a sick youth society, and government policies that says anyone who is interested in learning is a nerd, and a thousand other reasons. He would not buy it.
He went on to say: "If the teachers were any good they could get the students to listen to them and every student would excel. And if the teacher does not get results, fire them and bring in someone who can do the job."
Do you think my friend is right? Most of the fault is the teachers?
One time I spoke with one of my best professor's in college after class for like an hour. We eventually started talking about the students because this was a capstone strategic management class that brought together all of the different business majors. This class required discussion. A lot of it.
He told me there's essentially 3 tiers. The students who are self motivated, and will do well for themselves no matter what. The Zombies who don't care about anything and sit there with a blank look. They are just there because and don't even care about learning. And then there's the middle of people who he can actually reach and help them achieve better things. He could spark their interest, and add value to them. I tended to agree with this.
One time I spoke with one of my best professor's in college after class for like an hour. We eventually started talking about the students because this was a capstone strategic management class that brought together all of the different business majors. This class required discussion. A lot of it.
He told me there's essentially 3 tiers. The students who are self motivated, and will do well for themselves no matter what. The Zombies who don't care about anything and sit there with a blank look. They are just there because and don't even care about learning. And then there's the middle of people who he can actually reach and help them achieve better things. He could spark their interest, and add value to them. I tended to agree with this.
I agree 100% with your professor. One of the frustrating things about my current job is that I can reach that middle by teaching to the top. If I raise the bar on the top, it's like they create a vortex trying to reach it that sucks the middle up. Of course this leaves the zombies (that term describes them to a t) even farther behind the rest of the class and that just isn't acceptable SOOOOOO we teach to the zombies who don't want to learn anyway, the middle gets lazy because they don't really have to work now and the top is just bored. Great system we have here.
IMO, the zombies need to be somewhere else or just allowed to fail because they chose to fail instead of everyone worrying about what we should do for them to help them succeed when the problem is they don't care if they succeed and I don't have a cure for that one.
IMO, the zombies need to be somewhere else or just allowed to fail because they chose to fail instead of everyone worrying about what we should do for them to help them succeed when the problem is they don't care if they succeed and I don't have a cure for that one.
A lot of those "zombies" may be the "Fonzies" and the "Frenchies" who would be turned on by a technical-prep curriculum rather than a college prep curriculum.
Amen! As a child prodigy, I can relate to being BORED OFF MY ASSETS in school, because I believed everyone around me was dumb. Not that I was a genius. But that everyone else was dumb.
Fortunately for me, the troublemaking I engaged in as a result of my boredom...led to my being placed in a lab school attached to the University of Chicago at the age of ten...and I was given schoolwork that was constantly challenging to me...and at my own pace.
At age ten, I was already taking Trigonometry, reading on a college level, and taking Latin.
I was VERY lucky. The school I went to in Chicago was open to only forty students at a time. Luckily enough, I qualified to be one of those forty. I would have gone completely insane had I been forced to remain in public schools that were teaching DOWN to the lowest common denominator instead of DEMANDING excellence from everyone.
I fully agree there should be different paths for people to follow thru public education, and the paths should begin diverging in middle school. NOT everyone is cut out for college prep or college courses, and not everyone is interested in it, either. I suspect the zombies (and I agree that is a perfect description) would light up and shine their own light, if you engaged THEIR interest.
I know I sure lit up once my interest was engaged, and I was challenged to perform to the best of my abilities. I actually graduated for the academy at age fourteen. I had no need for school beyond that, academically.
I voluntarily returned to the public schools and attended four years of high school...for the social experience - which I did NOT have much of at the academy I was at at UC. Let's face it, when you interact only with the same forty students, year round, for three and a half years, and all of them are highly intelligent - as you are - you do not get much in the way of socialization skills.
Amen! As a child prodigy, I can relate to being BORED OFF MY ASSETS in school, because I believed everyone around me was dumb. Not that I was a genius. But that everyone else was dumb.
School drove me nuts because most - except for math - that I was taught I had already read in the many encyclopedia and National Geographics I had all over my house.
I spent every chance I could get ditching school to visit libraries and the county museums where I learned 10 times more than in school.
The only teachers I really liked and listened to were in my Vocational Agriculture classes in high school.
Teachers a re a convenient scapegoat. Can't blame the real culprits (parents, communities) because they vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.