No Excuses -- Step Two: Improve Math in Grades 4-6
I have identified 5 steps Utah should take to improve K-12 education.
STEP 2: Improve math performance in grades 4-6. Two years ago, we started a reading initiative for grades K-3. The results are impressive. These early-acquired reading skills will carry forward throughout the students' lives. The next major learning hurdle comes in math in grades 4-6. Whether students ultimately excel in math turns, in large part, on where they are by the end of the sixth grade.
Rather than correct math deficiencies early (when we could do so most efficiently), government tends to spasm further down the road. Currently, we panic over getting kids ready to pass their high school graduation exams (at a point when they not only lack the basic sixth-grade skills but all the others that subsequently should build on that base), and we pour money into college-level engineering initiatives to increase the number of engineers we produce (long after we have drained the pool of students with sufficient math skills). A better way would be to take care of the second major education building block at the correct time -- build a solid math base in grades 4-6 with a direct appropriation for math specialists.
This emphasis on educational building blocks is consistent with the State's decision in 2003 (SB 154) to place more focus on the core curriculum.
STEP 2: Improve math performance in grades 4-6. Two years ago, we started a reading initiative for grades K-3. The results are impressive. These early-acquired reading skills will carry forward throughout the students' lives. The next major learning hurdle comes in math in grades 4-6. Whether students ultimately excel in math turns, in large part, on where they are by the end of the sixth grade.
Rather than correct math deficiencies early (when we could do so most efficiently), government tends to spasm further down the road. Currently, we panic over getting kids ready to pass their high school graduation exams (at a point when they not only lack the basic sixth-grade skills but all the others that subsequently should build on that base), and we pour money into college-level engineering initiatives to increase the number of engineers we produce (long after we have drained the pool of students with sufficient math skills). A better way would be to take care of the second major education building block at the correct time -- build a solid math base in grades 4-6 with a direct appropriation for math specialists.
This emphasis on educational building blocks is consistent with the State's decision in 2003 (SB 154) to place more focus on the core curriculum.
posted by steve u. at 10/28/2005
Subscribe
4 Comments:
I think a lot of problems with schools stem from trying to fix ingrained problems too late down the road. Front-loading effort, or rather, setting the stage right makes sense. I imagine this would take increased coordination across all the grades (especially elementary) as much or more than increased effort in grades 4-6.
Ben, please elaborate on your last sentence.
Also, fyi, I was thinking that the next area of focused improvement -- after K-3 reading and 4-6 math -- could be science. Rereading your blog, though, it might make sense to make robots the next focus area. Priceless.
One response to a focus on 4-6 math would be to relax effort in K-3 and dramatically increase effort in 4-6. This, of course would be stupid. A more intelligent response would be to coordinate effort across all grades so that there is perhaps a cumulative dramatic increase, but a relatively slight increase per grade, or no increase per grade, effort per grade is just better coordinated with what is happening in the surrounding grades.
I think it makes for a difficult road to put all eggs in one basket (or 3 school years). I just want to emphasize what I think is part of your recommendation--that policy should reflect the most efficient route to the best results. The most efficient route is to set the stage early and coordinate effort across all grades (but especially the elementary years) so that what is learned builds on what was previously learned, and at some point, students can be on "auto pilot". Though focusing on 3 years as a sort of do-or-die point can be a great guide and assessment for coordination, the more important point, in my opinion, is intelligent (and by that I mean efficient) educational effort. Some basic characteristics of such effort would be: Teachers don't simply repeat lessons (or principles/skills etc.) year after year, and students are prepared for what they learn by what they have already learned. In other words, educational effort is coordinated.
I don't know if I made that sentence any clearer. I also don't know if I still agree with my position from a policy standpoint. I think Policy should reflect the 'what' and leave the 'how' more or less flexible. While I still believe that increasing coordination across grades is a more sustainable, efficient route to improving 4-6 math scores--and if I was consulting a school district on this, that is what I would recommend--if we can just improve 4-6 math scores, however we do it (within some basic standards), that's still good.
<< Home