8 - Who's right?

In grade 11, I teach my students how to complete the square - a process in quadratic functions which allows them to determine the max/min location on a parabola. This specific outcome is a process which will likely be forgotten by most students by grade 12. If questioned, I would tell my students that they may never complete the square in their life ever again, but the skills learned in the process are valuable.

If I were downtown and asked some business executives to write a math 30-1 exam, how many do you think will remember the specific outcomes and processes to pass the test? Not many. If my argument, even now, is that the skills are the most important thing, it makes sense to focus on them.

My comments above are opposite of the views of David Staples. At the heart of his discussions are a hate for "new math"; then he learned about curriculum redesign and now it's a bigger deal. 

WHO IS RIGHT?
Okay, do I agree with David Staples' argument about scrapping 21 century learning? No. Do I think the province is implementing 21st century learning properly? No. Are both sides needed? Yes.

In society, we need extremes. The conservatives keep us at our center, and groups like Greenpeace force us to REALLY question our values. We need both sides - and in education, both sides have valid points that have us talking. The talking part is good. The philosophy in 21st century learning is that education should focus on creating well-rounded students instead of students with the ability to complete the square like a little calculator can do (and a bunch of other outcomes)

If I could build students with character and competencies, I would love to - Sign me up. Let's build a generation with empathy and communication, and problem solving, and environmental awareness, etc., because I know the values a lot of my students have are misguided. Let's work on "character education". Maybe we should call it that instead of a focus on competencies - it sounds more positive.

The AISI cycles have been working towards this for a number of years. Why then, are my students' punching 7 x 1 into a calculator? Or saying 1/2 + 1/2 = 2/4 and thinking it's all good?

First, the province needs to know that students have changed dramatically, even in the last 5 years. Many people that have been implementing changes haven't been in a classroom in 10 - 15 years. I am very much hoping that the curriculum prototyping addresses some of these concerns and that people on the front lines do their duty in understanding our audience. Currently, most students are not innately driven with a thirst for knowledge and that is sad. To expect 15-year old  students to take control of their entire learning portfolio can be dangerous. This is what assessment, curriculum redesign, high school redesign, etc. are working towards (student-focused learning).

I do not have the answers, and that is why I'm not changing a province's entire system. I just hope that the people that ARE implementing a province-wide change, understand their audience: parents, students, teachers. They need to communicate clearly what needs to happen, as poor implantation of a good idea becomes a bad idea. There are approximately 35 000 teachers in Alberta - that will be expecting to radically change their entire profession. You can't do this in a couple media releases.

If the province wants the system-shift to work, they will need to give unbelievably large amounts of time and PD to support this endeavor. They can't expect it to work if teachers create the province's vision on weekends. 

It's sales - the province needs to sell a product to hundreds of thousands of people. BE CLEAR. Don't let it be misinterpreted. Then, the province will need to deliver its product and support its staff. If people like David Staples can sell a different product better, no one will buy 21st century learning.