This must be Houston’s 4th or 5th attempt at performance pay in the last 2-3 years. Another loser policy. Zzzzzzz

John Mighton is a prophet—and typically, without honour in his own country. Principals have been ordered from on high not to allow JUMP in their schools, and forbid teachers to use it. Our FOS supt. is an advocate because of personal experience with the program in a previous position, and says it truly works miracles with the most challenged kids.

I have spoken to a number of curriculum people about JUMP but none were actually knowledgeable about the program, what it includes, or how it deals with various topics. They simply repeated what they had been told, that it was “bad,” and “rote learning” and other rubbish that is demonstrably untrue.

Lots of people in education suffer from hardening of the categories.

I certainly don’t oppose him. My friend, George Martell, no fan of rote learning thinks he is great. His methods at least deserve a full hearing.

When I asked my Chinese wife why the Hong Kong kids did well in math she said, many reasons but one is that we had a math specialist itinerant teacher from grade 2 on so the home teacher cannot steal math time for other things. I believe this also needs close examination.

The Education Act used to stipulate that elementary school math was to be taught 200 minutes/week, and, years ago now, when we parents realized this, the teachers began booking six 40 minute math classes/week, in order to be well-ahead in class time, in case there were a field trip, assembly, etc. that would conflict with the math classes.
Recently, I’ve looked on the website, and I can’t find this stipulation of 200 minutes/week for elementary math in the Education Act any longer.
Even if it’s no longer there, a teacher should know better than to skip any of the basics!

We allot 300+ minutes per week to elementary math. 200 minutes is a bare minimum, less than 1 period daily.

There is a conflict between what the curriculum requires and what parents (and many post-secondary mathematics educators) consider necessary. Knowledge of number facts and standard algorithms is no longer required in the Ontario Curriculum and teachers are not permitted to spend much time on either.

Longitudinal data however show that students must be fluent in the “basics” in order to succeed in more advanced mathematics. Mighton is one who shows how such mastery can be made engaging and challenging. Without it many career doors slam shut and a major reason for secondary dropouts in my FOS is failure to get math credits. The math head at the local collegiate said it is a crisis. They have always had students who entered with a grade 3-4 level of math skills—mostly Special Ed kids. Now, he tells us, there are tons of regular kids (no IEPS) entering with math skills so deficient they don’t even register on the entry tests.

He said they have been taking kids on from a 4-5 level for years, but they are flummoxed by non-IEP’d students with primary grade math skills. Even with intensive work he felt that few have any chance of earning a grade 9 math credit in 4 years.Once they realize this they drop out.

The curriculum is a big part of the problem.

TDSBNW - “the curriculum is a big part of the problem”

So, are you encouraged or worried about the new curriculum changes coming up under some blue ribbon panel of “experts”?

TDSBNW, when you say ‘we allot 300 minutes’ whom is we?
I also don’t know what FOS, and IEPS stand for.

Yes, curricula is a big part of the problem in Ontario’s educational system, plus, with no accountability from teachers, apathy, laziness and a lack of focus or goals seemed to pervade the public educational system when my kids were there.
For years I taught the math curriculum to my kids, because so many of the units in math weren’t covered in school at all.

I’m neither encouraged nor worried. I don’t expect the “changes” to fix the problems with the curriculum, but I don’t necessarily think they will make things worse. May just be a matter of trading a toothache for strep throat.

Having been involved with the so-called experts in the revisions to the Social Studies curriculum awhile back, I was frankly shocked at many of the MOE people—their lack of content knowledge, ignorance of cognitive science, unfamiliarity with any direct research (they merely parroted what they had heard at workshops and none appeared to have read relevant research first-hand).

When the blind lead the blind….

Teachers will do what they can to make it work for students, but much is being outsourced to parents because needed skills and knowledge aren’t *in* the curriculum.

Sorry, bevkoski, I didn’t see your question before I replied to Cathy.

FOS is “family of schools.” It usually refers to two or three secondary schools together with their feeder elementary and middle schools.

IEPs are “individual education plans.” They are required in the Education Act for students with identified special education needs or disabilities. They state what modifications (changes to the content and grade level of the expectations) and accommodations (changes to the way the curriculum is accessed and assessed) for a student. A student with an IEP for math may be working on the Grade 4 level in Grade 7, for instance, and his report card grades will reflect his achievement on those (Grade 4) expectations.

It is not necessary for a student to be idenfied as a Special Education student to have an IEP. The Education Act also says that if a student requires a modified program to be successful, the principal is *required* (note use of word required) to develop one.  Many students with IEPs are not Special Education students.

A student may have an IEP for a short-term issue, such as a medical condition that requires accommodations for more than one school term.

Hope that helps.

I do not see apathy or laziness in schools but there may be some such as you describe. There is a lot of variability in the school system.

Principals have been ordered from on high not to allow JUMP in their schools, and forbid teachers to use it.

“...none were actually knowledgeable about the program, what it includes, or how it deals with various topics. They simply repeated what they had been told, that it was “bad,“ and “rote learning” and other rubbish that is demonstrably untrue.

“Lots of people in education suffer from hardening of the categories.”
=================================
“Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven”

Paradise Lost (Milton, long-ago educator)

Charles Tysoe, I had forgotten about that passage. 
It applies well to today’s educational system…

The Jump program, back when my knowledge was not as deep as it is today, I took the concept behind Jump, and tutored my daughter using the same methods. We never moved on, until she mastered the small steps. She learned to love math, by mastering the basic and fundamental rules of math, and along the way, she became skilled in picking patterns out. Just recently a SE teacher approach her, and ask her if she helping one of her students. She said yes, with a slight tremble of her lip, fearing the SE teacher will scold her for doing so. The SE teacher actually thank her, and went on she would never have thought of using this method, to understand squared numbers. It was the first time, a teacher thank her. The usual comments, would be - this is not the way I instructed you to do, or the nastier one, “I wish your mother would stop teaching you math at home.” I spent many of long nights, after math practice, exploring the hidden world of patterns in numbers, and that is thanks largely to Jump’s methods and others whose philosophy is, anyone can do math. For educators who preferred the discovery method, please tell me how anyone can do advance work in any subject, without mastering the basics. Note mastering is being stress here, because knowing is not mastering.