Comments on: "Standards are not curriculum"

By: Lancashire Day+Nurseriess

Lancashire Day+Nurseriess — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:24:32 +0000

[...] “Standards are not curriculum” « Joanne Jacobs [...]

By: Laura

Laura — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:00:23 +0000

The title, “Standards are not Curriculum” is exactly the point. We can outline the best standards, yet publishers of curricula such as Everyday Math, Connected Math and many other dubious programs proudly show how their instruction marches in synch. Most of us understand this is not the case. Maybe now is the time as the specific K-12 expectations are written to include the very substance that should NOT be included.

By: Core, core, and more core « STEM-ology

Core, core, and more core « STEM-ology — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:10:50 +0000

[...] than the previous version (the language arts standards were another story). Joanne Jacobs wonders why the math standards don’t use the categories we’re all used to (algebra, geometry, [...]

By: Mike Curtis

Mike Curtis — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:19:39 +0000

Mike Anderson,

Probability and statistics are part of every math class, from general math through calculus, taught in public schools. To say that teachers never took a course in these sub-categories is like saying that language teachers never took a course in reading or writing. You are right…to the educated, there’s no need to attend lectures on the obvious.

By: Tweets that mention “Standards are not curriculum” « Joanne Jacobs -- Topsy.com

Tweets that mention “Standards are not curriculum” « Joanne Jacobs -- Topsy.com — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:45:20 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by USWorldClassMath. USWorldClassMath said: RT @kriley19 Joanne Jacobs: “Standards are not curriculum” http://bit.ly/YI4Ny Full http://bit.ly/Ll7qB [...]

By: Mike Anderson

Mike Anderson — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:28:07 +0000

Many university math departments shy away from statistics and only grudgingly accept probability as a genre of mathematics. Many public school math teachers have never had a course in either probability or statistics, so these are treated as “extra” or exotic topics. Probability and statistics get their own categories for the same parochial reasons that statistics departments exist separate from math departments (often in distinct colleges) in many major universities. Don’t even mention operations research…

By: “Standards are not curriculum” « Joanne Jacobs | Curriculum up date today

“Standards are not curriculum” « Joanne Jacobs | Curriculum up date today — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:56:42 +0000

[...] to wager a manoeuvre of clarity” most the secernment between the two. Read more here: “Standards are not curriculum” « Joanne Jacobs Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: about-the-distinction, between-the-two, common, common-core, [...]

By: Andrew Bell

Andrew Bell — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:34:50 +0000

I don’t understand how these standards are going to improve the education of students. Any teacher worth his/her salt already knows that these items should be part of a student’s knowledge at the time of graduation. There is nothing significantly new here. Putting the items in a rubric won’t change anything.

With better teaching these items will get addressed. Giving less-good teachers a list of standards won’t ensure that students learn the material. The teacher’s editions of texts have had student-learning expectations in them for years – these aren’t that different.

Let’s focus on ACTION to improve each teacher, each school and each district by determining the shortcomings and working to address them. What can you do TODAY to improve your teaching, your school or your district?

P.S. – The mathematics topics tried to break the topics into mathematical ideas instead of classes intentionally, I would guess. Probability, functions, equations, etc. permeate mathematics and examples of each may be found in all of the classes that were mentioned in the posting. I think most well-versed in math would find these to be reasonable groupings.