Also, poor graduation rates in Applied suggests this program needs to be improved, to build more student engagement, not abandoned.

In particular, public eqao data for the TDSB shows that students in grade 9 applied math were already struggling in grade 6 (only 17% were at level 3, 4 in gr 6) and had lost ground since grade 3 since 25% who were at standard in gr 3, weren’t by the time they wrote the gr 6 eqao math test. This contrasts sharply with students in gr 9 academic math, 77% of whom were at level 3,4 in grade 6 (vs. 17%) and only 13% (vs. 25%) of whom had fallen from standard in gr 3 by the time they wrote the gr 6 eqao math test. I read this as evidence that its a myth that these applied students would do better in destreamed/academic classes. They were already not streamed in gr 6 and struggling and had preferentially lost more ground in the years between gr 3 and 6 when they were also not streamed. Three years later, in gr 9, they should have even greater knowledge gaps that would put them at a real disadvantage in academic math.

]]>Going by the 1 size down option for 1/2 anything and I order a small coffee with 1/2 cream, do I just get a black coffee?

I know I could get everything on the side and do it myself, but why?

]]>The examples that you’ve provided work, of course, but why those “movements” of terms are mathematically valid cannot be explained without first having an understanding of the balanced approach.

I have no qualms about students using shortcuts, so long at they can explain why they work. If they don’t get that, then they miss why we do math. It’s not rote memory and procedural efficiency that’s valued (at least for me). It’s about having a deep understanding about how numbers relate and what we can do with those relationships to solve meaningful problems. To skip a conceptual understanding of math for the sake of doing things faster, to me, does students a great disservice.

]]>