tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post5818344448341722779..comments2024-03-26T14:44:37.985-04:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: Chapter 2 Now UpKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-27805310510967285312007-01-31T06:28:00.000-05:002007-01-31T06:28:00.000-05:00"by doing and do by doing"....Wasn't that Frank Si..."by doing and do by doing"....Wasn't that Frank Sinatra?1citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14145980266535626431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-31931895260211579472007-01-29T15:46:00.000-05:002007-01-29T15:46:00.000-05:00I think what Engelmann is getting at is the proble...I think what Engelmann is getting at is the problem with standards in general--the mile wide inch deep problem and the failure to align the standards with any successful math instruction.<br /><br />What I think he's saying is that the standards often require the teaching of too much material in any given year. The result is that many math curricula address the propblem by teaching the material superficially and spiralling back around until, it is hopefully learned to mastery a few years later.<br /><br />Engelmann is saying that his program doesn't teach skills that way. Mastery learning and the spiral are incompatible. Estimation may not be taught until fourth grade because it can't be fit in any time sooner. So, if the standards indicate that estimation will be taught in first grade, there's going to be a problem.<br /><br />The standards tail is wagging the instructional dog. This wouldn't be a problem if the standards were based on a successful math curriculum, but they haven't been. As you know, math textbooks are typcially drafted to comply with<br />standards without regard to whether the material can be taught or should be taught at this level.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-69731520163365741592007-01-29T15:44:00.000-05:002007-01-29T15:44:00.000-05:00The ending page is tragic - the numbers of childre...The ending page is tragic - the numbers of children with reading problems who go on to prison, etc. Heartbreaking.Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-14073654283961552712007-01-29T15:09:00.000-05:002007-01-29T15:09:00.000-05:00This surprised me somewhat:
One of the more irrit...This surprised me somewhat:<br /><br /><i>One of the more irritating positions was that the school had to teach what's on the achievement test. Our position was that the achievement test does not determine what is appropriately taught. If we do a good job preparing what the children need to know to take the next steps in their education, they will ultimately learn enough to do well on achievement tests--if not on the second-grade tests, then probably on the third-grade test. Simply because the first grade achievement test has math items involving estimation of what the answer should be, we don't treat these items as a sufficient endorsement for us to devote instructional time on it. The children are not prepared to learn it yet. Possibly by fourth grade, estimation might be a reasonable topic, but not in first grade.</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517742269292732960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-67050764194794511932007-01-29T14:07:00.000-05:002007-01-29T14:07:00.000-05:00Regarding the last quotation, I confess I giggled ...Regarding the last quotation, I confess I giggled quite uncontrollably.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com