Thread by @rmarynow

My thoughts regarding the draft K-6 #math #curriculum released by #abed: In the subject introduction, there is a major focus on procedures and skills with a token nod to mathematical understanding; procedures, "foundational skills", and "standard algorithms" are the focus 1/

I appreciate the structure of the curriculum and that each curriculum follows the same structure. Organizing ideas (OI) and guiding questions (GQ) are nice and frame the broader ideas. However, I am not completely clear how the learning outcome relates to the OI/GQ #math 2/

The learning outcomes include an interesting mix of verbs 'acquire', 'interpret', 'explain', 'analyze', 'represent', 'recognize', 'relate', 'appy', 'visualize', and more. Unfortunately, the Knowledge, Understanding, and Skills and Procedures stated do not always fit the verb 3/

Reading through the #curriculum starting at Kindergarten, I was like 'ok, this isn't bad' until I got to Grade 1 and read this "The length of empty space between two points is called distance" (p. 8) (under Knowledge). I am not sure that 'distance' is an empty space. 4/

There are often things between two points...the distance between my house and the school is not empty. There are other houses in the way. I then started reading more closely and it seems like the #math #curriculum is written in sometimes obscure language and is designed to 5/

teach teachers the math concepts rather than illustrate what students are to know/do. In Grade 2, "Pascal’s triangle is a triangular arrangement of numbers that illustrates multiple repeating, growing, and symmetrical patterns" (p. 10) is stated under knowledge. 6/

This content is currently in high school. Patterns are great in grade 2, but what do I assess here? Do I assess the definition of Pascal's triangle? Do I assess the associated skills/procedures? "Investigate pattern in Pascal’s triangle" (p. 10) is a stated skills/procedure 7/

And I have to say, Investigate sounds a lot like exploration and students 'discovering' mathematical ideas. In Grade 3 "Addition and subtraction strategies can be chosen based
on the nature of the numbers" (p. 14) and "Standard algorithms are universal tools for addition and 8/

subtraction and may be used for any natural numbers independently of their nature" (p. 14) are listed right after each other. So are students allowed to choose strategies when the 'standard' algorithm is 'universal'? I put both 'standard' and 'universal' in ' ' purposefully 9/

There is a western standard algorithm which is not universal. And at this point 'standard' algorithm takes over in the curriculum for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division as the reliable and efficient way of performing calculations. And this statement 10/

"Multiplication is repeated addition" (p. 33) makes me lose my mind. Please, someone, show me how (x-3)(x+4)(x+17) can be represented using repeated addition...please I truly want to know. Then this bombshell comes also on page 33 11/

"Division by a fraction can be computed using the formula
a/b ÷ c/d = a/b x d/c." Now I am livid. So no understanding needs to be developed about why or how this works, just use the formula. Hard no. Additionally, this content is currently in grade 8. Not only is the 12/

#curriculm heavily focused on skill development (many worksheets), the content has moved down grade levels. This worries me ... so what is left for grades 7 - 12? Calculus? Another hard no. Please, reject this #math curriculum. I have addressed only a few of the 13/

mathematical atrocities in this #abed #curriculum. I have worked on #math curriculum development in Alberta through 3 governments, none have been perfect, but this one is astonishingly offensive and gets me upset - the impact on teachers and students will be negative. end/