---- Ljackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > or is a comibnation of a failure to implement the curriculum in combination > with a lack of deep >mathematical understandings as a teacher? >
Nail on the head, Lori. I teach math methods for teachers at a local college. Student teachers who feel "math smart" come to my course and are surprised by what they did not understand about elementary math. Elementary is the foundation for more than reading. It is the foundation for math understanding (not just learning the four operations by rote). It makes me so sad that schools and districts institute quality nontraditional programs without proper training for teachers. That said, I understand the frustration of a curriculum that seems like you cannot wander from it, and yet I understand the necessity of a math curriculum that requires a spiral in learning--no loops missed. When I researched Japanese texts (programs), I found that although the spiral was required, the text and requirements were so honed at each grade level, there was plenty of leftover time for further exploration, practice, and even wandering into other topics by the teacher. Are these programs (Everyday math and Trailblazers) so thick that there is no room for this? (I teach fifth during daylight hours and my district uses a traditional curriculum that I wander from immensely). Even if this is the case (thick curriculum)...I suspect it is the case because USA teachers need a greater level of day to day support (instructional requirements) to fully address math. This thick curriculum will be thick until we teachers become more adept at truly understanding math at a level that would allow us to have a more frugal curriculum (still spiraling) without panicking. (When I show the Japanese math texts to teachers--their reaction is usually fascination followed by panic, "I will be through that in a month! Then what?") I guess if I were to have my choice in math programs (as I tell my students, "If I ran the world"), I would first want a program like EM or Trailblazers or Singapore or Japanese math texts with TONS of professional development attached. Without the professional development? I would prefer the traditional math texts.I feel this way even though I have developed a pretty good understanding of math. I feel this way because I rely on teachers at earlier grades to know what they are doing. Concept-based nontraditional programs without professional development is a bit like telling your students to use math manipulatives to learn math on their own. :)Bonita _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
