I'm a grade one teacher in #onted . I have a #math specialist qualification and will be a lead teacher for implementing this new curriculum. So here are my initial professional thoughts on this new math curriculum: ontario.ca/page/new-math-…
Structure: Changing the structure of the document to show connections from year to year is a good change. But that mapping has already been done for the old curriculum. It's not new. Statement rating: overstated.
Real-life connections: This one is true. The connections needed to be updated. I should point out, though, that connections are always at the discretion of the teacher and are not considered core content. Rating: Mostly true.
The statement about students not being required to learn number facts in the old curriculum is categorically false. It's referred to as "developing fluency," and it's pretty specific. Statement rating: false.
Spatial reasoning: this one is true as far as it goes. There aren't enough spatial reasoning connections built into the 2005 doc. They can be found there and they are absolutely implied, but drawing them more specifically is a good thing. Rating: mostly true.
I will say, though, that the implication that students are not using patterning and algebra concepts now is completely false. They're embedded in the 2005 curriculum and start in grade one. Ask the 5 pan balances still in my classroom. Rating: false.
Fractions: Again, the case for fractions learning in the old curriculum is understated here. There's lots of it. Equal sharing is EVERYWHERE in that document. Statement rating: false.
Mathematical confidence: This is not a math skill. It's a socio-emotional skill. Conservatives seem to have a thing about confidence. I remember that word figured prominently in the Mike Harris curriculum docs, too.
The problem is there was no acknowledgement in those documents that it's possible to be both confident AND WRONG. Confidence is not a boon in and of itself; it has to come from understanding. I'll be waiting for more info on this one before rating.
Coding: It's probably petty of me to point out the grammar mistake in that first sentence, but it made my eyes bleed a little. In any case, this one is true.
Financial literacy: I'm 100% down with this one. The old curriculum was too limiting when it came to how much to teach about money and when to teach budgeting. It really didn't happen until secondary. Statement rating: true.
Until I see the actual expectations, I'm not going to be able to thoroughly evaluate the number strand, but it looks to me like they're hyping something that teaches all the same things we've already been teaching. Statement rating: overstated.
Algebra: We already start algebra in grade one, modelled using manipulatives and extending to equivalency statements where they solve simple equations, like 2+7=__+4. The coding language is the only new thing here. Rating: overstated.
Data: I need more information, but I teach graphing of basic data in grade one. We just got done analyzing weather data collected throughout the month of May.
Spatial Sense: Connecting measurement to geometry and graphic design are both much more explicit here. I'd like to see an explicit connection to art. And it's true that the old curriculum included nothing about measuring in computing. Rating: true.
I already dealt with financial literacy and socio-emotional learning.
So, overall, there's a lot of politics in this statement and a severe lack of acknowledgement that we're already doing a lot of the things they say are new. Given that this government has been consistently critical of an uncommunicative with teachers, that's not surprising.
There are good changes here. There are also a LOT of areas that will need significant resource development. I think teachers can probably do the measurement+geometry from resources we already have, but not one in ten knows enough about coding.
Financial literacy will require a lot of resource development after primary grades. I think primary teachers will have enough resources that they can extend to meet these expectations, but the budging stuff? We don't have resources for that.
Things that are lacking: there is zero mention in this document about the practice of spiralling mathematical instruction. It's good pedagogy and leads to better retention, and most boards have been pushing it. So where is it?
For those who don't know that term, spiralling is the practice of doing a few days on each topic and then circling back around to it later, so you hit all aspects of the curriculum on a very regular basis. This lack is proof that they didn't consult with teachers.
I'm also concerned about the lack of focus on time. I predict a lot of angst, similar to the hand-wringing over cursive, about kids not being able to read an analogue clock. Elapsed time is HARD and requires significant instruction to master for most kids.
All in all, if this were released with a "get your feet wet and build capacity towards full implementation in 2021-22," I'd be reasonably happy with it. The problem is that they've plopped down a new house without building a foundation first.
Teachers are going to be scrambling to catch up with it for the next several years because that capacity was not built, and parents will be disappointed that it isn't happening fully - and they're going to blame teachers, instead of the government that skipped the foundation./end
