-> SK> Seems to me that, just as students shouldn't leave third grade
-> without SK> knowing how to read, and call in the RR teacher and other
-> intervention SK> methods, kids shouldn't leave second grade without
-> knowing their basic SK> addition and subtraction facts nor third
-> without SK> knowing multiplication. SK> Get intervention for these
-> kids, what... a Math Facts Recovery SK> teacher?...and get them set
-> up for success in math in fourth and fifth SK> grade instead of
-> re-hashing basic material they should have already SK> learned.
-> If these facts were taught with proper effective methods, there would
-> be no need for rework (which is often very expensive).  If one
-> teacher has a method that works better than the others in use, then,
-> IMO, everyone should be teaching that way.  Teachers need to work
-> together for the benefit of the students, (and maybe swallowing some
-> "professional pride"?).
Yes, if the facts were taught effectively in the first place, there
should be no need for "re-teaching". However, even if the kid
understands the principle behind multiplication, but doesn't memorize
the multiplication tables, that child will be at a disadvantage in
subsequent topics. My daughter can sit down to take a timed
multiplication test, and encountering something like 7x8, she will
recall that 5x8 = 40, and then add two more eights to it, to get the
answer 56. Now she thoroughly understands the concept behind
multiplication (otherwise she couldn't use this method to get her
answers) but she won't finish the timed test that way.
Even if the teacher teaches effectively, doesn't the child/parent have
to accept some responsibility for the child's learning the information
that is presented at school? Or are you saying that the classroom
environment and time spent in it should be sufficient for the children
to learn everything that the teacher/school expects the child to know
(if this is your position, then I resepctfully disagree).
As for teachers working together, learning from each other, and
swallowing some of their pride, I agree. However, I know that in my
school when I have presented some suggestions to the other department
members, just the fact that I, Sheila King, have suggested it, already
rankles, and they will think of any excuse to not implement the
suggestion. Wouldn't it be nice if personal issues and politics could be
kept out of the workplace? Somehow, I don't think we'll ever reach that
Utopia, though.
-> SK> think that to allow the kids longer than that does them a
-> terrible SK> disservice and sets them up to do poorly in subsequent
-> classes.
-> And this is the greatest area of discrimination as the poorer student
-> with the bad home will not survive in a school set up this
-> way--he/she is doomed to failure.
I guess, in an effort to keep kids on track, some assessment should be
made to determine whether the student is getting support at home or not.
If not, then additional school services should be provided in the
afternoon or evening to make up for that lack. I can hear initial
objections to the cost, but I wonder if the money saved by keeping the
kid on track wouldn't end up to be greater than the cost of providing
these afternoon/evening home-replacement services.
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
---------------