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.
If memory serves me correctly (and this is going back a few years and I'm old ), students who do poorly in math do better if you flit through subject after subject and "spiral" back to them at a later date. More traditional learners need to go in depth and take time to understand before they move on. Since the aim of NCLB is to teach all students to the same level, you aim for the bottom and do what works for the bottom. The top, I'm told (I have a daughter there) can take care of themselves.
I don't care that they want to focus on the bottom as, to some extent, I agree that the top will do well on their own but I don't think you should take away traditional classes for the kids who do well in them. Forcing them to become the struggling students by teaching math by glossing over it instead of going in depth is not the answer.
NCLB...<sigh>
Every time I hear something about it I feel like vomitting.
Basically you're trying to teach kids math that will never get it.....
....and the kids that can get it are not going to truely live up to their potential because they aren't seeing the same focus as the kids that should be in a remedial program.
As a result we're pushing them all toward mediocrety.
Edit: This reminds me of the King of the Hill episode when the school principal put all the sub-par kids in Special Ed because they were elliminated from taking the standardized tests thereby allowing only the brighter kids to ace the test. Not that this is what's going on but the NCLB forces schools down a path that leads to similarly stupid activity.
Last edited by drjones96; 04-07-2010 at 09:13 AM..
It isn't hard to learn algebra OR geometry, if you are talking about high school algebra 1 and geometry. I just disagree with the order in which it was taught (to me, anyways.) I managed to get C+/B-/B+ in Algebra 1 my entire freshman year of school, and that was with me doing my homework on the 45-minute bus ride every morning.
My biggest beef was when they made me take Geometry right after Algebra 1. Completely different way of doing things, some things were similar, others weren't. I failed Geometry the first time because I just didn't get it. It finally clicked my junior year (my Geometry retry year) and I managed to get a C in the class without doing the homework.. so I still passed.
Then comes Algebra 2 and it's been two years since I've done so much algebraic math. Failed the first semester and didn't re-enroll in the class for the second semester. I did TA work instead...
Now, my opinion on this is that a kid can do Algebra easily enough. Pretty simple stuff, not a whole lot of stretching of the brain going on (even the hardest part, Parabolic equations and graphing them, I forget the proper name). What they did where I lived was put Geometry in the middle, which was odd because there was stuff in Geometry that varied between super simple math for three weeks (Algebra 1) followed by three months of math that had nothing to do with anything else we learned. This can make it ridiculously easy to fall behind.
I seem to recall that about 30% of the class failed Geometry on the first go-around before finally passing it the second try. Then they got to Algebra 2 and did HORRIBLY bad. then again, my school's main Algebra 2 teacher was freakin' horrible; he was brilliant when it came to math but was absolutely terrible at teaching it.
Every time I hear something about it I feel like vomitting.
Basically you're trying to teach kids math that will never get it.....
....and the kids that can get it are not going to truely live up to their potential because they aren't seeing the same focus as the kids that should be in a remedial program.
As a result we're pushing them all toward mediocrety.
Edit: This reminds me of the King of the Hill episode when the school principal put all the sub-par kids in Special Ed because they were elliminated from taking the standardized tests thereby allowing only the brighter kids to ace the test. Not that this is what's going on but the NCLB forces schools down a path that leads to similarly stupid activity.
Yeah, that....
I wish we'd go back to the days when it was ok to aim for a job that didn't require a degree. Every level of education, including college, is being dummied down in the name of everyone getting an education.
You know what? We need mechanics and carpenters and street plow drivers and garbage collectors (a special thanks to them because we'd be up to our eyeballs in our own trash without them )...etc,etc,etc....too. Why is it such a bad thing to aim for a job that does not require a degree? Why must we treat all students like they are headed to college?
Ok, I get 4 years of math and even 4 years of science but make it math and science on a level the student will use. Don't force them all onto a college bound track. And while you're at it, make a second language mandatory for graduation. This is a global economy. We can't afford not to be able to understand the rest of the world. Often a second language is what it takes to get a job. I was passed over for a job teaching math not because I lack math or teaching skills but because I don't speak a second langauge. The other candidate did.
I wish we'd go back to the days when it was ok to aim for a job that didn't require a degree. Every level of education, including college, is being dummied down in the name of everyone getting an education.
You know what? We need mechanics and carpenters and street plow drivers and garbage collectors (a special thanks to them because we'd be up to our eyeballs in our own trash without them )...etc,etc,etc....too. Why is it such a bad thing to aim for a job that does not require a degree? Why must we treat all students like they are headed to college?
Ok, I get 4 years of math and even 4 years of science but make it math and science on a level the student will use. Don't force them all onto a college bound track. And while you're at it, make a second language mandatory for graduation. This is a global economy. We can't afford not to be able to understand the rest of the world. Often a second language is what it takes to get a job. I was passed over for a job teaching math not because I lack math or teaching skills but because I don't speak a second langauge. The other candidate did.
Perhaps you have heard of Vocational Schools? Or "School of Choice" programs?
I knew many kids in high school that opted out of the traditional "college prep" education for a trade school and their diploma.
Here, we require algebra II and chemistry to graduate from high school.
I don't hear about many vocational schools but we do have alternative high schools for students who have, pretty much, been kicked out of regular high schools. I'm not sure what kinds of programs they offer. I have heard of high schools that offer vocational training as electives on top of the traditional diploma but they still have to take algebra II and chemistry to graduate.
We have school of choice but the requirements for graduation are the same no matter which school you attend. Personally, I think students should get to decide, after 10th grade whether they want to go the college prep track or a vocational track.
Here's the problem. If I put all students in one class and expect them to work to the same level, I have to pick a level that is something below average (NCLB concentrates on the bottom of the class). This results in bored students in the average to above average range. I find the upper students will simply work on other things but that middle of the class becomes disruptive. They are not motivated to move on on their own and many will become disruptive if they are not challenged.
Now, put these three groups in three different classes and they can all be challenged on their level. The lower students can get the extra help they need (assuming here they don't pack 30 of them in a classroom but this is my dream world so we'll go with what I think would work ).
The choice is drag all students down so we can pull the bottom up or find a way to pull the bottom up without dragging the rest of the class down. I think you can accomlish what NCLB intends better by tracking.
To be honest, as long as I have the lab space, I don't care if you put 30 students in my upper classes. They don't tend to be the behavior problems. However, I don't want 30 students in my lower classes. I find that classroom management becomes the main part of my job (as opposed to teaching) when they get over about 24 students.
I still agree with you, but the government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to turn out standardized high school graduates who resemble nothing other than identical blocks of velveeta cheese. They're so much easier to quantify and keep track of. But people, bless their little hearts, seldom conform to the molds, and thereby complicate the whole process. (pun intended!) You didn't really think this was about education now did you?
It isn't hard to learn algebra OR geometry, if you are talking about high school algebra 1 and geometry. I just disagree with the order in which it was taught (to me, anyways.) I managed to get C+/B-/B+ in Algebra 1 my entire freshman year of school, and that was with me doing my homework on the 45-minute bus ride every morning.
I seem to recall that about 30% of the class failed Geometry on the first go-around before finally passing it the second try. Then they got to Algebra 2 and did HORRIBLY bad. then again, my school's main Algebra 2 teacher was freakin' horrible; he was brilliant when it came to math but was absolutely terrible at teaching it.
I think it would be a great idea for students to choose which order they want to do algebra and geometry in. Some highly visual thinkers would do much better if they could have geometry first, and there have been many cases when people who were horrible at math did extremely well after having a geometry class and were able to pass with ease into upper levels of math, thereby surprising the heck out of themselves and others. These people always do better with a picture of what they're trying to accomplish. And then there are those who do better in one or the other--either algebra or geometry, but not both. It depends on how symbol oriented you are I think and some people don't relate well at all to the symbols in equations.
Here's the problem. If I put all students in one class and expect them to work to the same level, I have to pick a level that is something below average (NCLB concentrates on the bottom of the class). This results in bored students in the average to above average range. I find the upper students will simply work on other things but that middle of the class becomes disruptive. They are not motivated to move on on their own and many will become disruptive if they are not challenged.
Now, put these three groups in three different classes and they can all be challenged on their level. The lower students can get the extra help they need (assuming here they don't pack 30 of them in a classroom but this is my dream world so we'll go with what I think would work ).
The choice is drag all students down so we can pull the bottom up or find a way to pull the bottom up without dragging the rest of the class down. I think you can accomlish what NCLB intends better by tracking.
To be honest, as long as I have the lab space, I don't care if you put 30 students in my upper classes. They don't tend to be the behavior problems. However, I don't want 30 students in my lower classes. I find that classroom management becomes the main part of my job (as opposed to teaching) when they get over about 24 students.
I think it's actually worst than that.
In a state like California, you have millions of kids being educated, half of them are white, or asian (with college educated parents) and a 1/4 or a 1/3 of the class is illegal alien students (parents who have an 8th grade education). Who is that going to drag down? Who do you think could be working much faster?
In states with illegal alien kids, or those with little or no english skills, the level picked to teach a class is going to be way below average. English speaking kids are going to get held back on day 1 of kindergarden, under that kind of a system. That's a terrible way to handicap someone for 12 years.
In a state like California, you have millions of kids being educated, half of them are white, or asian (with college educated parents) and a 1/4 or a 1/3 of the class is illegal alien students (parents who have an 8th grade education). Who is that going to drag down? Who do you think could be working much faster?
In states with illegal alien kids, or those with little or no english skills, the level picked to teach a class is going to be way below average. English speaking kids are going to get held back on day 1 of kindergarden, under that kind of a system. That's a terrible way to handicap someone for 12 years.
Sadly, when we drag down the higher performing students, we shoot ourselves in the foot. How can we compete in a global economy with all of our students educated to the same low level needed to get everyone through?
Catch 22. People don't want to see the children of the privlidged continuing to get ahead but by denying them the opportunity to get ahead, we make sure no one gets ahead. When high tech jobs come here, they bring with them, low tech jobs. Everyone wins when we educate our best and brightest.
Also, I believe (it's been a while since I researched this so if anything has changed, please let me know) that putting the next 15% or so of students in with the top 10% and then teaching to the top results in that 15% reachining higher educational goals. While the top 10% will survive, pretty mucn no matter what we subject them to, that next 15% or so will not. We lose them. This is, probably, the group I am in.
I wonder if it's too late for us. How many years will it take to convince industry to invest in US workers when the current crop are ill educated?
students who do poorly in math do better if you flit through subject after subject and "spiral" back to them at a later date. More traditional learners need to go in depth and take time to understand before they move on.
My son did poorly in math all through school, he's a high school junior now, and I place the blame firmly on the flitting back and forth. He was one of the ones who needed a firm grounding in each step. I know I could never have learned math the way the school expected him to.
I failed high school algebra 1, then retook it and got an A, did fine in geometry and avoided any more high school math like the plague. I attribute my A to a teacher who taught algebra in a way I could understand. The first teacher left me clueless, and couldn't understand how some of us in the class just didn't get it.
My son can't understand how kids can say math is easy and history is hard. He enjoys all his social science classes and is enrolled for advanced placement history next year. He is upset that his high school is cutting back on social science classes in favor of more math and science courses.
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.
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.
), students who do poorly in math do better if you flit through subject after subject and "spiral" back to them at a later date. More traditional learners need to go in depth and take time to understand before they move on. Since the aim of NCLB is to teach all students to the same level, you aim for the bottom and do what works for the bottom. The top, I'm told (I have a daughter there) can take care of themselves. 
Yeah, that....
