Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bingo. Too late for mine…thanks to dismal MCPS curriculum.

My mcps student placed in T20 at MD mathcounts and learned it all from MCPS. The problem isn't the school but lazy parents who expect MCPS to raise their kids.

Nope, my kid loved math until she moved from her private K-8 to MCPS high school in a magnet program. This lack of direct instruction is hurting our kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bingo. Too late for mine…thanks to dismal MCPS curriculum.

My mcps student placed in T20 at MD mathcounts and learned it all from MCPS. The problem isn't the school but lazy parents who expect MCPS to raise their kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bingo. Too late for mine…thanks to dismal MCPS curriculum.

My mcps student placed in T20 at MD mathcounts and learned it all from MCPS. The problem isn't the school but lazy parents who expect MCPS to raise their kids.

Anonymous wrote:Bingo. Too late for mine…thanks to dismal MCPS curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:This piece is about dismal math education in New Zealand but it is exactly the same here. Inquiry based learning doesn't work and we are failing students. We need to go back to the sage on the stage, teachers teaching students.

https://educationhq.com/news/we-need-to-go-back-to-teacher-led-explicit-instruction-maths-expert-171647/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It took thousands of years of inquiry by millions of people, including the most brilliant minds ever to walk the earth, to develop mathematics, but we expect an average child to replicate that achievement. The idea is not only inefficient, it’s preposterous.

Students need direct instruction from people who have already mastered the content and have a deep understanding of how the particular concept fits into the broader field in general. They need someone who can use their current knowledge level to help them understand the new topic and make sure it’ll provide the foundation they need for future study.

Direct instruction doesn’t simply mean students are passively sitting in their desk while being lectured to. Direct instruction can involve any number of activities that a teacher uses to generate interest and/or reinforce learning. These activities, however, become more effective when the students understand what is going on and aren’t just flailing. For example, labs are an integral component of a Chemistry class. However, the labs are done after the underlying concept has been taught, and with specific instructions. No Chem teacher would hand their students a tray of chemicals, tell them to play around with them to see what happens, and expect they would be able to rediscover whatever concept the experiment was supposed to illustrate.

Too much of modern education is spent on “teaching students how to think” without giving them the content they need to have something to think about. They need facts (yes - this may mean some rote memorization) and skills. Those provide the foundation, framework, and toolset that will enable them to make independent inquiries. In the meantime, let’s lift them to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than having them fumble and flounder in the dark.

I wish you were on SB. Voice of reason

Try running the teacher's colleges. That's where these ideas trickle into the world of education.

The teacher colleges have a lot to answer for. Like the nonsense of 3 cueing. many are so far away from evidence based practices they should lose accreditation. Also the big business of selling nonsense curriculums needs to be cracked down on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It took thousands of years of inquiry by millions of people, including the most brilliant minds ever to walk the earth, to develop mathematics, but we expect an average child to replicate that achievement. The idea is not only inefficient, it’s preposterous.

Students need direct instruction from people who have already mastered the content and have a deep understanding of how the particular concept fits into the broader field in general. They need someone who can use their current knowledge level to help them understand the new topic and make sure it’ll provide the foundation they need for future study.

Direct instruction doesn’t simply mean students are passively sitting in their desk while being lectured to. Direct instruction can involve any number of activities that a teacher uses to generate interest and/or reinforce learning. These activities, however, become more effective when the students understand what is going on and aren’t just flailing. For example, labs are an integral component of a Chemistry class. However, the labs are done after the underlying concept has been taught, and with specific instructions. No Chem teacher would hand their students a tray of chemicals, tell them to play around with them to see what happens, and expect they would be able to rediscover whatever concept the experiment was supposed to illustrate.

Too much of modern education is spent on “teaching students how to think” without giving them the content they need to have something to think about. They need facts (yes - this may mean some rote memorization) and skills. Those provide the foundation, framework, and toolset that will enable them to make independent inquiries. In the meantime, let’s lift them to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than having them fumble and flounder in the dark.

I wish you were on SB. Voice of reason

Anonymous wrote:It took thousands of years of inquiry by millions of people, including the most brilliant minds ever to walk the earth, to develop mathematics, but we expect an average child to replicate that achievement. The idea is not only inefficient, it’s preposterous.

Students need direct instruction from people who have already mastered the content and have a deep understanding of how the particular concept fits into the broader field in general. They need someone who can use their current knowledge level to help them understand the new topic and make sure it’ll provide the foundation they need for future study.

Direct instruction doesn’t simply mean students are passively sitting in their desk while being lectured to. Direct instruction can involve any number of activities that a teacher uses to generate interest and/or reinforce learning. These activities, however, become more effective when the students understand what is going on and aren’t just flailing. For example, labs are an integral component of a Chemistry class. However, the labs are done after the underlying concept has been taught, and with specific instructions. No Chem teacher would hand their students a tray of chemicals, tell them to play around with them to see what happens, and expect they would be able to rediscover whatever concept the experiment was supposed to illustrate.

Too much of modern education is spent on “teaching students how to think” without giving them the content they need to have something to think about. They need facts (yes - this may mean some rote memorization) and skills. Those provide the foundation, framework, and toolset that will enable them to make independent inquiries. In the meantime, let’s lift them to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than having them fumble and flounder in the dark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It took thousands of years of inquiry by millions of people, including the most brilliant minds ever to walk the earth, to develop mathematics, but we expect an average child to replicate that achievement. The idea is not only inefficient, it’s preposterous.

Students need direct instruction from people who have already mastered the content and have a deep understanding of how the particular concept fits into the broader field in general. They need someone who can use their current knowledge level to help them understand the new topic and make sure it’ll provide the foundation they need for future study.

Direct instruction doesn’t simply mean students are passively sitting in their desk while being lectured to. Direct instruction can involve any number of activities that a teacher uses to generate interest and/or reinforce learning. These activities, however, become more effective when the students understand what is going on and aren’t just flailing. For example, labs are an integral component of a Chemistry class. However, the labs are done after the underlying concept has been taught, and with specific instructions. No Chem teacher would hand their students a tray of chemicals, tell them to play around with them to see what happens, and expect they would be able to rediscover whatever concept the experiment was supposed to illustrate.

Too much of modern education is spent on “teaching students how to think” without giving them the content they need to have something to think about. They need facts (yes - this may mean some rote memorization) and skills. Those provide the foundation, framework, and toolset that will enable them to make independent inquiries. In the meantime, let’s lift them to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than having them fumble and flounder in the dark.

I wish you were on SB. Voice of reason

Try running the teacher's colleges. That's where these ideas trickle into the world of education.

The teacher colleges have a lot to answer for. Like the nonsense of 3 cueing. many are so far away from evidence based practices they should lose accreditation. Also the big business of selling nonsense curriculums needs to be cracked down on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It took thousands of years of inquiry by millions of people, including the most brilliant minds ever to walk the earth, to develop mathematics, but we expect an average child to replicate that achievement. The idea is not only inefficient, it’s preposterous.

Students need direct instruction from people who have already mastered the content and have a deep understanding of how the particular concept fits into the broader field in general. They need someone who can use their current knowledge level to help them understand the new topic and make sure it’ll provide the foundation they need for future study.

Direct instruction doesn’t simply mean students are passively sitting in their desk while being lectured to. Direct instruction can involve any number of activities that a teacher uses to generate interest and/or reinforce learning. These activities, however, become more effective when the students understand what is going on and aren’t just flailing. For example, labs are an integral component of a Chemistry class. However, the labs are done after the underlying concept has been taught, and with specific instructions. No Chem teacher would hand their students a tray of chemicals, tell them to play around with them to see what happens, and expect they would be able to rediscover whatever concept the experiment was supposed to illustrate.

Too much of modern education is spent on “teaching students how to think” without giving them the content they need to have something to think about. They need facts (yes - this may mean some rote memorization) and skills. Those provide the foundation, framework, and toolset that will enable them to make independent inquiries. In the meantime, let’s lift them to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than having them fumble and flounder in the dark.

I wish you were on SB. Voice of reason

Try running the teacher's colleges. That's where these ideas trickle into the world of education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It took thousands of years of inquiry by millions of people, including the most brilliant minds ever to walk the earth, to develop mathematics, but we expect an average child to replicate that achievement. The idea is not only inefficient, it’s preposterous.

Students need direct instruction from people who have already mastered the content and have a deep understanding of how the particular concept fits into the broader field in general. They need someone who can use their current knowledge level to help them understand the new topic and make sure it’ll provide the foundation they need for future study.

Direct instruction doesn’t simply mean students are passively sitting in their desk while being lectured to. Direct instruction can involve any number of activities that a teacher uses to generate interest and/or reinforce learning. These activities, however, become more effective when the students understand what is going on and aren’t just flailing. For example, labs are an integral component of a Chemistry class. However, the labs are done after the underlying concept has been taught, and with specific instructions. No Chem teacher would hand their students a tray of chemicals, tell them to play around with them to see what happens, and expect they would be able to rediscover whatever concept the experiment was supposed to illustrate.

Too much of modern education is spent on “teaching students how to think” without giving them the content they need to have something to think about. They need facts (yes - this may mean some rote memorization) and skills. Those provide the foundation, framework, and toolset that will enable them to make independent inquiries. In the meantime, let’s lift them to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than having them fumble and flounder in the dark.

I wish you were on SB. Voice of reason

Try running the teacher's colleges. That's where these ideas trickle into the world of education.