AP Statistics 2009 results and rubrics were reviewed and the new lead reader introduced.
AP Stats is now the 8th most popular AP test with an 8% increase after three years of double digit growth.
The main concern in grading to students is that they must be very "communicative" in their answers. For example: if a question says that the "the following values are drawn from a normal distribution," then answers to the question must state that the probability calculated was based on a normal distribution, not just the numeric answer. Otherwise, zip.
Lee Kucera of Capo High mentioned that her school has four sections of AP Stats for tenth graders! 120 students that complete Algebra 1 in 7th grade, Geometry in 8th grade, Accelerated Algebra 2 + Trig in 9th grade, AP Stats in tenth, Accelerated Pre-Calc, followed by Calculus A in eleventh, and Calculus BC in twelfth.
Interpret Capo's approach. Stats is needed more than Calc, but "we" expect top students to take Calc; therefore Capo does both!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
TEDxNYED - Dan Meyer - 03/06/10
Starts out conventionally, but when he gives a real problem, the strength of his approach (Reform Math!) lays the groundwork for people to learn Traditional Math.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The Road to Success
The TED video of the Director of Disney's Imagineering indirectly relates to Education. It takes off after the "Candle Problem" is played out. This is a must see video that WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE.
IMHO the dumbing down of education is actually the realignment of topics for simple grading systems. It may be that the increased use of multiple-choice tests drives away the type of problems that really matter. Furthermore, the debates about group work and, perhaps, the Math Wars, were and are distorted by inappropriate, simply false, evaluation methods.
IMHO the dumbing down of education is actually the realignment of topics for simple grading systems. It may be that the increased use of multiple-choice tests drives away the type of problems that really matter. Furthermore, the debates about group work and, perhaps, the Math Wars, were and are distorted by inappropriate, simply false, evaluation methods.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
EL's Must Pass Math
Slide show runs at seven seconds per slide
Comments on Slides
2. Arne Duncan has repeatedly stated that the achievement gap and access are civil rights issues. This will open up school districts to civil rights suits, which will hurt and cost. Yes, it will happen, and there will be a lot less money for teaching.
3. Professor Dweck of Stanford stresses that people who think "Smartness" is just genetic, don't work hard for several simple reasons. She stresses that intelligence is developed and that "learn, learn, learn" can be a normal way for students to think also. This effort to defeat the "internal" squelcher, may also help defeat the "external" squelcher of peer pressure. IMHO this is far more important to get students to understand than ALL other activities. The professor's research is exceptionally strong.
4. Really knowing the vocabulary to pass math tests (not just math vocabulary) must be explicitly taught in context. This is not about posters. This is about seeking "multiplication tables" level of knowledge. Pressing forward with SDAIE strategies in math must be reinforced.
5. The reasonable goal of 9th grade Algebra doesn't make it mandatory for ill-prepared students. Delaying Algebra with different elective math courses until they are ready is wise and doesn't punish them with F's (zero credits) or pointless D's. Naming the courses Math Topics or Algebra Support or General Math helps. The course codes are already present. These courses are really all the same: support Algebra Readiness.
A district could use "grant" money to support special groups, outside or inside of RandR, to entice teachers in this area to use alternative methods and to press for results. This would serve as a model PLC for both school and district and justifies the use of "special" money.
Of course, the state direction must be satisfied with all deliberate effort. There is no reason that bonuses to 7th/8th grade math teachers couldn't be offered for making students Algebra Ready or Algebra Readiness Ready. Teachers could bid for these positions; which would give Management some flexibility. A 9th grade bonus for Algebra Ready for 10th grade may also be wise.
6. Adjusting courses and course titles so that students always earn credit in math would be wise. Failing Algebra 1A may allow Algebra A credit or Algebra Support Credit or General Math. If each math area had one shared computer, for online math; then this adjustment could be handled with minimal scheduling support.
Grading can be done as completion of work and quizzes or Final Test. It may be best to offer Incompletes; instead of F's. Students can use Credit Recovery to earn a grade. Failure is not an option.
7. There are many aspects to motivating students. First, tell them that they can be done with math in 10th grade. It's OK. If they are succeeding, they will stay, and getting them to care about finishing Algebra in 9th or 10th is a big deal. It may motivate them to master Algebra Readiness. Second, tell them that they can "graduate" after 10th grade if they pass the CHSPE which requires Algebra. It's OK. Very, very few will leave school, if they are succeeding.
Comments on Slides
2. Arne Duncan has repeatedly stated that the achievement gap and access are civil rights issues. This will open up school districts to civil rights suits, which will hurt and cost. Yes, it will happen, and there will be a lot less money for teaching.
3. Professor Dweck of Stanford stresses that people who think "Smartness" is just genetic, don't work hard for several simple reasons. She stresses that intelligence is developed and that "learn, learn, learn" can be a normal way for students to think also. This effort to defeat the "internal" squelcher, may also help defeat the "external" squelcher of peer pressure. IMHO this is far more important to get students to understand than ALL other activities. The professor's research is exceptionally strong.
4. Really knowing the vocabulary to pass math tests (not just math vocabulary) must be explicitly taught in context. This is not about posters. This is about seeking "multiplication tables" level of knowledge. Pressing forward with SDAIE strategies in math must be reinforced.
5. The reasonable goal of 9th grade Algebra doesn't make it mandatory for ill-prepared students. Delaying Algebra with different elective math courses until they are ready is wise and doesn't punish them with F's (zero credits) or pointless D's. Naming the courses Math Topics or Algebra Support or General Math helps. The course codes are already present. These courses are really all the same: support Algebra Readiness.
A district could use "grant" money to support special groups, outside or inside of RandR, to entice teachers in this area to use alternative methods and to press for results. This would serve as a model PLC for both school and district and justifies the use of "special" money.
Of course, the state direction must be satisfied with all deliberate effort. There is no reason that bonuses to 7th/8th grade math teachers couldn't be offered for making students Algebra Ready or Algebra Readiness Ready. Teachers could bid for these positions; which would give Management some flexibility. A 9th grade bonus for Algebra Ready for 10th grade may also be wise.
6. Adjusting courses and course titles so that students always earn credit in math would be wise. Failing Algebra 1A may allow Algebra A credit or Algebra Support Credit or General Math. If each math area had one shared computer, for online math; then this adjustment could be handled with minimal scheduling support.
Grading can be done as completion of work and quizzes or Final Test. It may be best to offer Incompletes; instead of F's. Students can use Credit Recovery to earn a grade. Failure is not an option.
7. There are many aspects to motivating students. First, tell them that they can be done with math in 10th grade. It's OK. If they are succeeding, they will stay, and getting them to care about finishing Algebra in 9th or 10th is a big deal. It may motivate them to master Algebra Readiness. Second, tell them that they can "graduate" after 10th grade if they pass the CHSPE which requires Algebra. It's OK. Very, very few will leave school, if they are succeeding.
Monday, March 1, 2010
A Very Short Introduction to Math (Review)
Professor Timothy Gowers starts with the need for models and ends with the usefulness and necessity of estimation. The body of the book gives the flavor, the value and the connectedness of Proofs, the calm resolutions of infinity and the impact of changes in dimension and Geometry.
No. Not a problem-based course. Not a history lesson. No sexy examples. Little mention of the titans. Yet the point of doing math, its constraints and pathways, would strike anyone who reads the book. Whether high school students would get it. I'm not sure. The maturity in the words and the totality of the immersion within its few pages is sublime. In knowing that exact answers are rarely found, but knowing the boundaries of the answers and their closeness to actual mimics our own lives.
This would be a must read in a non-ADHD world.
Gowers also wrote the Princeton book on Math. The professor is a Fields medal winner.
No. Not a problem-based course. Not a history lesson. No sexy examples. Little mention of the titans. Yet the point of doing math, its constraints and pathways, would strike anyone who reads the book. Whether high school students would get it. I'm not sure. The maturity in the words and the totality of the immersion within its few pages is sublime. In knowing that exact answers are rarely found, but knowing the boundaries of the answers and their closeness to actual mimics our own lives.
This would be a must read in a non-ADHD world.
Gowers also wrote the Princeton book on Math. The professor is a Fields medal winner.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Black Hole War
Leonard Susskind's book is not just a popularization: it's a chronicle of discovery and of the people involved. It echos Watson's Double Helix with Hawking playing the role of Pauling, but it's far more fair, yet unsettling. Scientists stand on the shoulders of previous great scientists, and it's clear that Susskind and the many other scientists he describes stand on the shoulders of Hawking, but also they have surpassed him, and they know it. At times, it is like reading words of physicists who arrived after Einstein like Heisenberg, Dirac, ..., in real time. These are greats who in many ways moved passed Einstein. Susskind and friends are the greats who have moved passed Hawking. If only for this reason, this book allows the reader to be a fly on the wall of science history, and it's fun the read.
But it is much more.
My knowledge of nuclear physics, while not deep, is not trivial. In the 1970's I worked in the Stanford Physics department and was well aware of the whys and hows of the linear accelerator and PEP. Now, I might as well be a worthless witch doctor at Johns Hopkins.
Be ready to be dazzled. Alice in Wonderland doesn't come close to the reality of the Holographic Principle - yes, Virginia, you're a hologram. The wild woollies of string theory or the math of strings (spinning elementary particles) amazes and Susskind makes it fairly clear without any equations. Smart guy holding the endowed Felix Block chair of Physics at Stanford. He is no lightweight. He does briefly state one or two objections to this "Plank Area" world. Basically, string theory has not been proven - it simply works better than anything else. More subtly, it hasn't been shown to be unique. Another mathematical approach may be more "true." Even more importantly, the emphasis on dualism between elementary particles and protons/neutrons etc is questionable. Physicists believe in dualism; perhaps too much.
Consider that recently the Poincare Conjecture was proven - so 19th century! The proof required dealing with scale, getting close to a surface requires different math than being far away. Physicists don't seem to know this issue may actually apply to them in subtle ways that their hubris may preclude. And that's the rub. All talk, no experiments, but for good reason: to test out their theories would a take a linear accelerator the size of the milky way. Oh yeah, one of the ideas of really modern physics is that small things are heavier than big things. When this starts making sense, you become self-aware of your sanity: alt world is the world.
In short, Susskind delivers an accessible tour de force of science today from the view of giants. If you're serious about knowing how the world really works, not in the simple political sense, read this.
But it is much more.
My knowledge of nuclear physics, while not deep, is not trivial. In the 1970's I worked in the Stanford Physics department and was well aware of the whys and hows of the linear accelerator and PEP. Now, I might as well be a worthless witch doctor at Johns Hopkins.
Be ready to be dazzled. Alice in Wonderland doesn't come close to the reality of the Holographic Principle - yes, Virginia, you're a hologram. The wild woollies of string theory or the math of strings (spinning elementary particles) amazes and Susskind makes it fairly clear without any equations. Smart guy holding the endowed Felix Block chair of Physics at Stanford. He is no lightweight. He does briefly state one or two objections to this "Plank Area" world. Basically, string theory has not been proven - it simply works better than anything else. More subtly, it hasn't been shown to be unique. Another mathematical approach may be more "true." Even more importantly, the emphasis on dualism between elementary particles and protons/neutrons etc is questionable. Physicists believe in dualism; perhaps too much.
Consider that recently the Poincare Conjecture was proven - so 19th century! The proof required dealing with scale, getting close to a surface requires different math than being far away. Physicists don't seem to know this issue may actually apply to them in subtle ways that their hubris may preclude. And that's the rub. All talk, no experiments, but for good reason: to test out their theories would a take a linear accelerator the size of the milky way. Oh yeah, one of the ideas of really modern physics is that small things are heavier than big things. When this starts making sense, you become self-aware of your sanity: alt world is the world.
In short, Susskind delivers an accessible tour de force of science today from the view of giants. If you're serious about knowing how the world really works, not in the simple political sense, read this.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Defense of Newsweek's Challenge Index
Criticism of Newsweek's Challenge Index is misplaced and misdirected. This is due to the limited background of critics who show no knowledge of a valuable analog: evolutionary theory. Consider two of stronger critics of Jay Mathew's work: Sara Mead and Andrew Rotherham. They succinctly write:
"A successful high school should show high levels of student achievement, graduate almost all of its students and not let any demographic subgroup suffer at the expense of others. Most national and local experts and policymakers share these values. To be sure, graduation rates and student achievement are hardly the only indicators of a school's quality. At a minimum, however, America's best high schools should be expected to meet these basic criteria.
"Yet our analysis shows that many schools on Newsweek's list do not meet these minimum standards."
Mead's and Rotherham's words appear well-chosen and difficult with which to disagree, but they are actually irrelevant and misleading for the simple reason that education is an individual achievement. Bureaucratic measures are not only meaningless, but often distorting to individual students. The efforts in education are simply those of multiple single individuals seeking the necessary trade-offs and efficiencies in teaching the many; and there are many types of many. Education is hard, but education is not policy. Forcing education to fit policy is a fool's game. There are many fools.
In 1966, simple Darwinism, which holds that evolution functions primarily at the level of the individual organism, was threatened by opposing concepts such as group selection, a popular idea stating that evolution acts to select entire species rather than individuals. George Williams's famous argument in favor of the Darwinists delivered the decisive response to those in opposing camps. His Adaptation and Natural Selection, now a classic of science literature, is a thorough and convincing essay in defense of Darwinism; its suggestions for developing effective principles for dealing with the evolution debate and its relevance to many fields outside biology ensure the timelessness of this critical work. Almost all Ed wonks ignore this. For example, they think that subgroup success and small "achievement gaps" on tests matter. Well it does for them and it sounds compassionate, but what does it matter to an individual student? Is it realistic to think that someone picks the a school because it has a small achievement gap, without asking "how much achievement or why does that matter to me?" Do Hispanic parents chose a school for their children because the Native-American subgroup did OK, without asking "what's OK or what does that matter to me?" Saying "meeting proficiency in state standards" truly begs many questions. People want a safe school with solid academics to maximize the chances of their children becoming successful. Everything else, outside of athletic considerations, is silly fluff for irrelevant-to-learning, but not to concerned bureaucrats in the education business. This can be nasty sounding. For example, a school with a high dropout rate isn't really an issue to successful students. It may actually be a plus: get rid of low-performing riffraff. This is what sport teams on campuses know also.
The Challenge Index simply and effectively helps parents and students pick schools from their perspective! Other measures may have some utility for education bureaucrats, but not for families. Bureaucratic measures shouldn't be mentioned in public because they lead to confusion like those from advocates of social group selection in the early 1960's.
"A successful high school should show high levels of student achievement, graduate almost all of its students and not let any demographic subgroup suffer at the expense of others. Most national and local experts and policymakers share these values. To be sure, graduation rates and student achievement are hardly the only indicators of a school's quality. At a minimum, however, America's best high schools should be expected to meet these basic criteria.
"Yet our analysis shows that many schools on Newsweek's list do not meet these minimum standards."
Mead's and Rotherham's words appear well-chosen and difficult with which to disagree, but they are actually irrelevant and misleading for the simple reason that education is an individual achievement. Bureaucratic measures are not only meaningless, but often distorting to individual students. The efforts in education are simply those of multiple single individuals seeking the necessary trade-offs and efficiencies in teaching the many; and there are many types of many. Education is hard, but education is not policy. Forcing education to fit policy is a fool's game. There are many fools.
In 1966, simple Darwinism, which holds that evolution functions primarily at the level of the individual organism, was threatened by opposing concepts such as group selection, a popular idea stating that evolution acts to select entire species rather than individuals. George Williams's famous argument in favor of the Darwinists delivered the decisive response to those in opposing camps. His Adaptation and Natural Selection, now a classic of science literature, is a thorough and convincing essay in defense of Darwinism; its suggestions for developing effective principles for dealing with the evolution debate and its relevance to many fields outside biology ensure the timelessness of this critical work. Almost all Ed wonks ignore this. For example, they think that subgroup success and small "achievement gaps" on tests matter. Well it does for them and it sounds compassionate, but what does it matter to an individual student? Is it realistic to think that someone picks the a school because it has a small achievement gap, without asking "how much achievement or why does that matter to me?" Do Hispanic parents chose a school for their children because the Native-American subgroup did OK, without asking "what's OK or what does that matter to me?" Saying "meeting proficiency in state standards" truly begs many questions. People want a safe school with solid academics to maximize the chances of their children becoming successful. Everything else, outside of athletic considerations, is silly fluff for irrelevant-to-learning, but not to concerned bureaucrats in the education business. This can be nasty sounding. For example, a school with a high dropout rate isn't really an issue to successful students. It may actually be a plus: get rid of low-performing riffraff. This is what sport teams on campuses know also.
The Challenge Index simply and effectively helps parents and students pick schools from their perspective! Other measures may have some utility for education bureaucrats, but not for families. Bureaucratic measures shouldn't be mentioned in public because they lead to confusion like those from advocates of social group selection in the early 1960's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)