Project Maths

byhookorbycrook

Is it a step forward or is it dumbing down?Opinions please.Seems funny that there are suddenly such big improvements in results,perhaps?

rainbowtrout

It's easy to tweak marking schemes to produce the desired set of results. I have yet to hear of a new syllabus for any subject which has not been deemed a success when the results are published. I'm more familiar with the Leaving Cert Project Maths syllabus to be honest, but just looking at that one, all of the theorems I learned for my Junior Cert in 1994 are now Higher Level Leaving Cert material and I wonder why I and thousands of others like me were able to learn this stuff for Junior Cert and now it's deemed acceptable material for Leaving Cert Higher Level.

solerina

I dont teach Maths but every single Maths teacher I know has nothing good to say about project Maths, it will be interesting to see what happens with it over the next few years !

jonseyblub

solerina wrote: »

I dont teach Maths but every single Maths teacher I know has nothing good to say about project Maths, it will be interesting to see what happens with it over the next few years !

As a concept Project Maths is a brilliant idea but the way it's been brought in is a disaster. Has there ever been a situation where a syllabus has been phased in over 3 years?

byhookorbycrook

That's what my leaving cert maths teacher who was an examiner in maths used to say, Rainbowtrout,which is what I felt, listening to the kids on the news tonight.

theLuggage

Seems to me marking schemes have definitely been tweaked - to put it nicely -to make project maths results appear better. Have heard nothing but complaints from last year and year before. The phasing in over senior and junior cycle simultaneously is ridiculous.

jonseyblub

rainbowtrout wrote: »

. I'm more familiar with the Leaving Cert Project Maths syllabus to be honest, but just looking at that one, all of the theorems I learned for my Junior Cert in 1994 are now Higher Level Leaving Cert material and I wonder why I and thousands of others like me were able to learn this stuff for Junior Cert and now it's deemed acceptable material for Leaving Cert Higher Level.

Thing about the project maths course though is that instead of learning it off you will actually be expected to understand it which is a good thing. When you see the theorems on the LC syllabi it just means that they are expected to still know them after they have studied them in the JC with a few extra added on. The LC syllabus assumes all the knowledge gained from JC and then adds to it.

Moody_mona

Completely agree with the phasing in issues. I have sixth years who are really struggling with the concept of Project Maths, not only because they are working off two syllabi, but also because they have been pushed into the deep end, having never learnt like this for Junior Cert.

With regards to the good Project Maths results, as already mentioned, that is down to a favourable marking scheme. Similar to what happened at Leaving Cert, the Project Maths has "showed up" the standard syllabus.

discus

HEY GUYS I'VE JUST COMPARED MY APPLES TO MY ORANGES AND MY ORANGES ARE MUCH MORE ORANGE THAN THE APPLES. HURRAH.

Sums up how I feel about the celebration surrounding the higher grades for hte 2 syllabi.

evolving_doors

discus wrote: »

HEY GUYS I'VE JUST COMPARED MY APPLES TO MY ORANGES AND MY ORANGES ARE MUCH MORE ORANGE THAN THE APPLES. HURRAH.

Sums up how I feel about the celebration surrounding the higher grades for hte 2 syllabi.

Well put,,, too many variables.

discus

Can I add that I'm not jeering the students who are celebrating, I'm having a go at the establishment.

doc_17

jonseyblub wrote: »

Thing about the project maths course though is that instead of learning it off you will actually be expected to understand it which is a good thing. When you see the theorems on the LC syllabi it just means that they are expected to still know them after they have studied them in the JC with a few extra added on. The LC syllabus assumes all the knowledge gained from JC and then adds to it.

Most of the questions at HL in the "old" syllabus require understanding as well...

I'd like to compare the project Maths students paper 1 in the Profect schools with the non-Project Schools paper 1 just to see what's what.

evolving_doors

doc_17 wrote: »

Most of the questions at HL in the "old" syllabus require understanding as well...

I'd like to compare the project Maths Students' papers 1 in the Profect schools with the non-Project Schools just to see what's what.

good point,
although if they out performed other schools in paper 1 also, would that nullify the project maths "success"? Or if they underperformed in paper 1 would that mean they are loosing out on some skills also?

Does anyone know if all pilot schools have to have exclusively fully qualified maths teachers (to final year year in degree)? does it matter anyway?

RealJohn

doc_17 wrote: »

jonseyblub wrote: »

Thing about the project maths course though is that instead of learning it off you will actually be expected to understand it which is a good thing. When you see the theorems on the LC syllabi it just means that they are expected to still know them after they have studied them in the JC with a few extra added on. The LC syllabus assumes all the knowledge gained from JC and then adds to it.

Most of the questions at HL in the "old" syllabus require understanding as well...

I'd like to compare the project Maths students paper 1 in the Profect schools with the non-Project Schools paper 1 just to see what's what.

This is spot on.
In fairness, as has already been said, project maths is a great idea but the way it's being implemented is moronic. Phasing it in in several "strands" is stupid for a start but the truth is that they should have allocated extra teaching hours to project maths rather than dumbing down the whole course (which is what they've actually done).
Also, the title "project maths" exposes it for what it really is - a PR exercise. This isn't about improving the students' level of maths, this about improving results and that is ultimately a pointless exercise because now we'll have the university lecturers complaining (or continuing to complain) that the students aren't able for third level maths in spite of getting high marks in the leaving.

Sure we've already seen it. When I did the leaving (late 90s) students who got Bs and Cs in junior cert higher level were generally able to have a good go at leaving cert higher level. Currently, in my experience, only students who get As in higher level junior cert will realistically give higher level leaving cert maths a good go. This, in my opinion, is a result of dumbing down the junior cert course and not doing the same with the leaving. Now we're going to see the same effect except that it will be third level that suffers and the department of education will be able to claim success in the short term..... until it turns out the universities start turning out even fewer maths and science graduates and as a result, the standard of teaching will fall further and we'll need a new syllabus again.

Rant over (for now).

rainbowtrout

Armelodie wrote: »

good point,
although if they out performed other schools in paper 1 also, would that nullify the project maths "success"? Or if they underperformed in paper 1 would that mean they are loosing out on some skills also?

Does anyone know if all pilot schools have to have exclusively fully qualified maths teachers (to final year year in degree)? does it matter anyway?

The maths teachers in Castleknock College (one of the pilot schools) write the Folens Project Maths books so I guess they're qualified

On a side note George Humphrey, the guy that writes the Gill and Macmillan Maths books has been quoted as saying

that project maths will cost the state (you and me) €100,000,000 with no benifit and will be abandoned within 5 years

http://www.projectmaths.com/index.php/2010/03/george-humphrey-says-that-proj/


I've heard that quote a few times now, so I wonder if he did say it and if it will come true

TheBody

In my opinion, I dont think there was anything "very wrong" with the old syllabus, it was just that it was taught badly. I have several years experience teaching at both second level and third level maths.

At third level, the first year students I'd have would be a mix of ordinary and higher level. I've always noticed that the people that would have got let's say an A in higher level leaving cert are not really better than the ordinary level people. They just don't seem to have the level of understanding that you would expect. They just seem to have learned maths like it is a machine...just repeat the processes.

With regards my opinion on project maths.....first it's a shame that a course needs to be designed to "force" understanding. I think teachers have a lot to answer for in this regard. However I don't think project maths is going to be the silver bullet they think it will. I've a feeling that students will still try to memorise the proofs of theorems etc. I find all the extra stats boring as hell. (I guess I just don't find stats interesting).

Anyway, I hope it turns out to be a sucess but I remain to be convinced.

TheDriver

No teacher having a good word to say about it is somewhat true but I think partly because teachers hated probability before when you could avoid it and now really hate it when you have to do it.
I wouldn't listen to Humphreys too much, he did a massive campaign to get PM thrown out and then went off to write a textbook for it to hlpe us on our way! He wasn't going to cut off his nose to spite his face!
I am reserving judgement on PM, I think there are a lot of teachers around where I am who won't just knuckle down and get on with it but rather give out about it but don't bother going to night courses and inservices.
I say fair play to Anne Brosnan and Cammie Gallagher for driving this course on its way.

We really had to move away from algebra for everything, we even used to have probability using algebra at times.

doc_17

People at making some good points about students going on to 3rd level....,what will happen when a long theorem and proof are stuck up on the board and the lecturersays "go off and learn that"? Will the students be able to handle that style?

For the record - I think probability is one of the most enjoyable aspects if the new or old syllabus

TheBody

TheDriver wrote: »

No teacher having a good word to say about it is somewhat true but I think partly because teachers hated probability before when you could avoid it and now really hate it when you have to do it.
I wouldn't listen to Humphreys too much, he did a massive campaign to get PM thrown out and then went off to write a textbook for it to hlpe us on our way! He wasn't going to cut off his nose to spite his face!
I am reserving judgement on PM, I think there are a lot of teachers around where I am who won't just knuckle down and get on with it but rather give out about it but don't bother going to night courses and inservices.
I say fair play to Anne Brosnan and Cammie Gallagher for driving this course on its way.

We really had to move away from algebra for everything, we even used to have probability using algebra at times.

Agree with a lot of what you say there. I don't think much of Humphreys either.

Delphi91

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It's easy to tweak marking schemes to produce the desired set of results. I have yet to hear of a new syllabus for any subject which has not been deemed a success when the results are published. I'm more familiar with the Leaving Cert Project Maths syllabus to be honest, but just looking at that one, all of the theorems I learned for my Junior Cert in 1994 are now Higher Level Leaving Cert material and I wonder why I and thousands of others like me were able to learn this stuff for Junior Cert and now it's deemed acceptable material for Leaving Cert Higher Level.

Any examiner will tell you that this is a common practice, so that the results in any given year "fit the bell curve". There are stories of examiners being told to go back and re-grade papers because they've either given too many high grades or too few. The grades get published, the dept tells you that they're broadly in line with the grades every year and nobody is any the wiser. Of course they're in line - they'd been tweaked to be in line!!!!

To be honest, I'm surprised that this hasn't become a huge issue in the media. But then this is typical of what we do in this country - we gloss over (cover up?) the problem and pretend it isn't there. And if the problem "isn't there" we don't have to tackle it.

Its about time that we got back to basics in teaching maths. Fine, use calculators, but only in post primary. In primary school, teach kids basic arithmetic, tables, mental arithmetic, approximation, etc. Examine them as they leave primary school to make sure they've reached the required standard. But this won't happen because it will show up that there is a problem! Or maybe those results will get "tweaked" also!!

jonseyblub

Delphi91 wrote: »

Any examiner will tell you that this is a common practice, so that the results in any given year "fit the bell curve". There are stories of examiners being told to go back and re-grade papers because they've either given too many high grades or too few. The grades get published, the dept tells you that they're broadly in line with the grades every year and nobody is any the wiser. Of course they're in line - they'd been tweaked to be in line!!!!

To be honest, I'm surprised that this hasn't become a huge issue in the media. But then this is typical of what we do in this country - we gloss over (cover up?) the problem and pretend it isn't there. And if the problem "isn't there" we don't have to tackle it.

Its about time that we got back to basics in teaching maths. Fine, use calculators, but only in post primary. In primary school, teach kids basic arithmetic, tables, mental arithmetic, approximation, etc. Examine them as they leave primary school to make sure they've reached the required standard. But this won't happen because it will show up that there is a problem! Or maybe those results will get "tweaked" also!!

Agree fully with this but don't think for one minute that the practice of the 'bell curve' is an Irish problem. It's a common statistical method used in many different countries for exam results manipulation.

whiteandlight

I decided to let this thread run a bit before pitching in. I was a local facilitator for project Maths (can't do it this year, training clashes with my wedding) and taught in a project school for two years before moving back to a national roll out school this year.
To sum up my feelings: the roll out sucks, the syllabus and it's aims are good.

Elaborating a bit, deadlines were continuously missed by the roll out team. We'd be promised sample questions/papers and they would materialise months after they were due/needed and in the case if last year even had to be withdrawn as 'unrepresentative of the course'. How can the NCCA get sample papers so wrong they need to withdraw them and get away with it?! Syllabi were constantly changing tho they have finalised the one for the roll out at least. There simply wasn't enough work/workers going on behind the scenes to roll this out properly.

I agree with previous posters the simultaneous roll out is painful, for students and teachers. For the first few years teachers are teaching everyone different syllabi and also as mentioned the senior cycle students find the type of questions extremely difficult to cope with. In their defense, the jc old syllabus was primarily something that could be learned off. Both the old papers allowed you not only to predict what was coming up but even down to the exact question it was on. This I think was flawed. Students really should be able to recognise the questions. However the current LC students have been used to that type layout and intensely dislike the new course.

However with all of the above I do like the new course, statistics and probability and all! I would have been one of those who never touched probability in school or college and had to teach myself how to do it. These are both areas of Maths where it is fairly straightforward to solve interesting problems that are relevant to our students and hopefully encourage some interest in the subject. They also are very important for life as we are constantly bombarded with stats nowadays and it is important that students learn not only how to do the stats but to question them too. I like the attempts to make the questions relevant to students tho I must admit last years jc project Maths paper could have been a better attempt at it! Anyways thats my two cents

boogle

I like the new material and the approach to new topics. I hate how it's being phased in. I also have a massive problem with the sample questions put out by the NCCA. They are verbose in the extreme, and that really does not suit a lot of student.

As someone already mentioned, students who have problems with Maths have had these problems since primary school. Asking secondary teachers to fix the problem is like putting an elastoplast on a big, infected wound. Too little, too late in most cases.

jonseyblub

boogle wrote: »

As someone already mentioned, students who have problems with Maths have had these problems since primary school. Asking secondary teachers to fix the problem is like putting an elastoplast on a big, infected wound. Too little, too late in most cases.

As well as that Maths is a compulsory subject so kids who have a dislike for maths before they even come into school still are made do it for 5-6 years. I'd prefer if it was like the British system in that you only get students who want to do it in front of you (after the GSCE's) and i guarantee the results will improve dramatically.

I've no problem with the fact that the colleges feel that the new course is watering down maths to a certain degree. If it makes it easier for the weak kids to pass all the better. The future engineers and scientists will learn ( and should learn) what they need to be an engineer and scientist in college.

stevomc50

RealJohn wrote: »

This isn't about improving the students' level of maths, this about improving results and that is ultimately a pointless exercise because now we'll have the university lecturers complaining (or continuing to complain) that the students aren't able for third level maths in spite of getting high marks in the leaving.

So the maths questions are easier and the way its taught is better??? in theory maybe but from experience i find this course harder than the previous course. i got a B in my junior and felt like i had control of maths at the start of the year.....I was aiming for an A1 at higher level, then the teacher changed the style which she taught and introduced us to these project maths questions... i now don't understand a thing... the questions don't seem to be anyway easier and i'm lost.. i feel i'd b lucky to get a C3 at this rate.
i'm now in my room every night trying to get to grips with it..... i shouldn't have to do this.... i should be able to do these questions like that because this new system is so perfect.

i have learned one thing though. reality doesn't compare to theory in any sense of the imagination.

NewHillel

jonseyblub wrote: »

I've no problem with the fact that the colleges feel that the new course is watering down maths to a certain degree. If it makes it easier for the weak kids to pass all the better. The future engineers and scientists will learn ( and should learn) what they need to be an engineer and scientist in college.

It's a problem for the entire country if our performance in this area slips even further. Already our Universities are falling down the International rankings. If third level colleges have to any further remedial teaching, this trend will accelerate - with longterm implications for inwards investment and jobs.

Part of the problem is attitudes like this. It speaks to a lowering of expectations and ever-dropping educational standards. In my view this can only be addressed if we increase the educational requirements for educators in the sciences. There also needs to be a pay differential to recognise those educators who succeed.

jonseyblub

NewHillel wrote: »

It's a problem for the entire country if our performance in this area slips even further. Already our Universities are falling down the International rankings. If third level colleges have to any further remedial teaching, this trend will accelerate - with longterm implications for inwards investment and jobs.

Part of the problem is attitudes like this. It speaks to a lowering of expectations and ever-dropping educational standards. In my view this can only be addressed if we increase the educational requirements for educators in the sciences. There also needs to be a pay differential to recognise those educators who succeed.

My point (attitude) wasn't that the course is watered down to such an extent that the future engineers of the country will require remedial teaching when they get to university. My point was that the vast majority of students who do Maths at leaving Cert level do not require maths for what they want to do in university so the present course at it stands was putting undue pressure on them to pass a subject which they may not necessarily like or be good at. If the project maths course makes it easier for them I've no problem with that. You seem to forget that these students have 6/7 other subjects to study at Leaving Cert. Why should Maths be the subject that is holding them back or giving them the most problems especially when they did not choose to study it in the first place.

In my opinion the new Project Maths Higher level course is at a high enough standard that students who do want to do engineering at university will not struggle when they get there. It may be a bit easier (according to some) than the old course but if it encourages more students to give it a shot I don't see a problem with it. The old course was very time-consuming and a lot of students who had the ability to do it were scared off by the amount of work required to get through the course and made the decision that points were easier got in other subjects. You automatically lost potential engineers with that decision alone. So the problem to some extent is not with the Maths course but with the points system.

As regards your point in having incentives for those who succeed. Define success. Is it getting a highly motivated student from a background where his/her parents are actually interested in education an A at HL Leaving Cert or is it getting a student from a dysfunctional background who has had problems with Maths all his life due to his parents never helping him with his homework a D at OL Maths? How are you going to measure it fairly?

RealJohn

NewHillel wrote: »

Part of the problem is attitudes like this. It speaks to a lowering of expectations and ever-dropping educational standards. In my view this can only be addressed if we increase the educational requirements for educators in the sciences.

This is correct. Make the course easier and the students' overall mathematical ability decreases.

NewHillel wrote: »

There also needs to be a pay differential to recognise those educators who succeed.

Like jonsey said, an educator's success is not black and white.
A friend of mine is working in a well known, high acheiving school in south Dublin. He's teaching their only ordinary level leaving cert maths class and his main challenge is getting the students to work as they all know that they'll all breeze to a B or a C and won't be counting it for points anyway so why make any effort?
Put that in contrast to a teacher who's teaching in a disadvantaged school on the north side where students get no support at home and have nowhere to do their homework. A maths teacher here would be facing the challenge of getting his ordinary level class to pass the course at all so that they might get into a university.

And then my own situation, where I'm teaching two different levels in my leaving cert class and my challenge is to maximising the results of the good students withtout leaving those who'll struggle to pass anyway behind.

If every student in all three of these ordinary level classes get C3s, which teacher was most successful? Were they all equal?

stevomc50 wrote: »

So the maths questions are easier and the way its taught is better???

I didn't say that. The course is easier because there's less material to cover. The standard of question probably hasn't changed much (though the type of question has) but you will come out with a narrower range of knowledge this year than those who did the leaving last year. This is not a good thing and if you get a C3 (or an A1), it will be worth less in practical terms than a C3 earned last year.

NewHillel

RealJohn wrote: »

Like jonsey said, an educator's success is not black and white. ...

And then my own situation, where I'm teaching two different levels in my leaving cert class and my challenge is to maximising the results of the good students withtout leaving those who'll struggle to pass anyway behind.

If every student in all three of these ordinary level classes get C3s, which teacher was most successful?

Of course, success can mean many different things. However, we need to foster a culture of academic excellence which I see little evidence of, apart from the top-tier schools. (I can already hear the grinding of teeth and sharpening of attack pencils. Nevertheless, we need to recognise educators who attain the highest standards in areas central to our ongoing prosperity. The current system encourages the mediocre and allows educators to hide behind the line of "we did the best with what we got".)

In the context of my post, my definition of success is taking the willing, and able, students in a population and getting them to a level where their mathematical skills, on leaving secondary school, are in line with, or ahead of, their International peers.

This requires many things, including streaming the brighter students, though this appears to be frowned upon, of late. It also requires educators with the necessary passion, expertise and pedagogical skills. It would be a rare school that had more than a handful of teachers, if any at all, with the appropriate background. It should be fostered and rewarded, as it is critical to our longterm success as a country.

TheBody

Project maths aside, the very first thing that should have been done was to ban calculators up until at least after the Junior Cert. Drives me nuts when I see kids going for their calculator to work out simple calculations.

implausible

NewHillel wrote: »

Of course, success can mean many different things. However, we need to foster a culture of academic excellence which I see little evidence of, apart from the top-tier schools. (I can already hear the grinding of teeth and sharpening of attack pencils. Nevertheless, we need to recognise educators who attain the highest standards in areas central to our ongoing prosperity. The current system encourages the mediocre and allows educators to hide behind the line of "we did the best with what we got".

That's because those of us not in the top-tier schools have to do exactly that - do the best with what we've got. It's not a line, it's reality!

The top-tier schools are that way because of selective enrolment policies. They avoid enrolling the special needs students, the students whose first language isn't English, travellers and students from disadvantaged backgrounds. And you think that the teachers, who end up with the cream of the crop sitting quietly in front of them, should be rewarded more for getting results that those students would get anywhere?

RealJohn

TheBody wrote: »

Project maths aside, the very first thing that should have been done was to ban calculators up until at least after the Junior Cert. Drives me nuts when I see kids going for their calculator to work out simple calculations.

This would be a help but they've have to bring back the old maths tables too so that the students could still do some trigonometry. I'd still prefer this though. There's too much in the new maths tables anyway. They hardly have to learn any formulas anymore.

NewHillel

deemark wrote: »

And you think that the teachers, who end up with the cream of the crop sitting quietly in front of them, should be rewarded more for getting results that those students would get anywhere?

No, I think that pupils, in too many schools don't get the results they are capable of. One of the reasons for this is the calibre of the teaching they get. I had hoped that this is one of the areas that BOM's would take an active interest in - i.e. looking at successes and failures (yes, I meant failures) across subjects, classes and teachers. However, there is fierce opposition to this. Teachers should be rewarded by results, the current system mitigates against high achieving pupils and teachers.

I readily accept that there are many other issues - including mixed ability classes, with diverse learning needs. In my opinion, this is yet another failure by the Dept. of Ed & Sc.

Please don't take offence, I really am not anti-teacher. I do think the system is totally broken and needs radical overhaul. We are being left behind internationally and failing our children.

Delphi91

NewHillel wrote: »

Teachers should be rewarded by results, the current system mitigates against high achieving pupils and teachers...

What yard-stick are you using to decide what constitutes "high achieving"?. The more "A"s at honours level my students get, the more high achieving they are (I am)?

I teach in a school where the very fact that certain students even come to school in the first place is a fantastic achievement. I deal with parents, who are long-term unemployed, who probably never finished primary school, who don't see the value of education, who don't turn up to PTMs, who couldn't care less if their children did homework or not, who live in an area where the very address guarantees that they will never get a job. Many of them are heavily involved in drink and drugs. Against this background, their children get themselves up in the morning, and in to school.

The fact that we can manage to keep them in school until at least their Junior Cert and often to their Leaving Cert is a huge achievement. We don't look down on them if they don't get A's, don't do honours subjects, etc. We expect them to get the very best result that they are capable of getting and we pull out all the stops to make that happen.

Every year, the papers show the students who got 7, 8, 9 A's in the JC or 550+ points in the LC. The papers portray the image that you're not a high achiever unless you fit the criteria above. I've yet to see a paper show a photo of Johnny/Mary who comes from the background I described above, who passed their JC/LC against all the odds. For these students, the very act of passing their exams makes them high-achievers. But it will never be acknowledged.

whiteandlight

While we appear to have gotten off topic (project maths ) here I'd just like to say a few things.

1. Teachers are not "against" some kind of rating system. But 99% of us are against rewarding by results for the very reason given by delphi91. How do you compare the results of students/teachers. Take the following scenario: John and Adam have the same IQ. Both have the same highly regarded teacher. John has a difficult home background, neither of his parents completed school and they are uninterested in his education. Adams parents are highly motivated and encourage/help Adam with his work and support his education. Who do you think is going to do better? The problem is that results are not a stand alone measure and how you would take into account the circumstances of each child/resources available to them etc in each case is beyond me?

2. "the current system mitigates against high achieving pupils and teachers". I'm not sure what you mean by this? High achieving pupils are generally motivated intelligent young people who work hard with their teachers/parents for their results. They receive constant praise etc for their achievements by schools, teachers, parents and the media. High achieving teachers is hard to define? Do you mean those willing to help out in extracurricular, those who get to know their students, those who get high results, those who stay back after school to prep or those who go home and prep all evening? Its difficult to decide.

Anyways back on topic. Just as a point to note, there was huge collaboration on this syllabus including universities and industry. Industry i believe emphasised the problem solving aspect and the universities wanted students who knew everything on the course as opposed to getting a hotchpotch of students some of whom knew matrices, other who knew probability etc. They have no problem teaching vectors in college for example, provided everyone has at least the same basic knowledge (or so I'm told) which make sense I think!

ClovisI

Hi all,
I believe that project maths is a good first step in the right direction, but it does not by itself constitute a remedy for the serious problem that is second level maths in Ireland. There should be a new, more challenging syllabus brought in in the future.

As far as I can see we have 3 main problems at the moment:

• Bad attitude towards learning maths - The biggest problem we have, there are two parts to it. Firstly, there is the idea students have that maths is too difficult to even try to understand and they would be better off spending their time learning off algorithms. Secondly, students often feel there is no use to learning maths if they don't want to become engineers or scientists. On the contrary, maths is the best way to give structure to your mind, which is important no matter what they do later.
• The level isn't high enough - The level of second level maths was low enough before the change compared to other countries' like France or Germany. Although it covered almost as many concepts it lagged far behind in terms of the ingenuity required of students. Now students have to be more creative but the syllabus is more restricted.
• Bad teaching - Personally I haven't had much experience with this but I suspect that when it does occur it is due to a cycle of uninterested students (ie. fix the other two problems and you fix this one).

Project Maths sets out to fix the first of these problems, and I'm sure it will - in it's own way. So far, though, it has only aggravated the second which I will now focus on.

Let's take France as an example. French kids study maths in more depth in the same time as Irish kids, yet more ingenuity is required to get the same grade. Why? Well aside from greater motivation, French kids haven't all grown up with the idea that an A is the norm. In most French classes (30 students) only one or two students would consistently get over 80%. This allows third level establishments to differentiate between the good and the very good. In terms of higher/ordinary, students decide in 5th year if they want to put a greater emphasis on scientific or literary subjects, with a different syllabus according to their choice. Science/Literary subjects then also count more or less in their final "points".

We cannot immediately expand the syllabus as students will need at first to get used to thinking creatively with the present PM syllabus. But in a few years it will be time to increase the depth of the course. Won't kids get worse results then, leading to lower CAO points? Yes, at first, but only slightly. And is that such a bad thing? Maintaining the 25 bonus points for Higher level should be enough to keep students interested.

To sum up : I propose that the syllabus be expanded and exam questions go into more depth in some kind of "Project Maths 2", and that this should begin as soon as possible after 2014.

Whether you agree or disagree I would love some opinions on this.
ClovisI

seavill

ClovisI wrote: »

[*]Bad teaching - Personally I haven't had much experience with this but I suspect that when it does occur it is due to a cycle of uninterested students (ie. fix the other two problems and you fix this one).

Whether you agree or disagree I would love some opinions on this.
ClovisI

here's an opinion, state facts and we might be able to have a proper discussion.

No actual facts to back up your theory and you admit yourself that you have no experience of bad maths teachers, but clearly it is a huge problem based on your experience???

So its the students fault the teacher is bad or did I read that wrong as well?

Good logic there.

evolving_doors

ClovisI wrote: »

Let's take France as an example. French kids study maths in more depth in the same time as Irish kids,

Just wondering Clovis, I'm not that familiar with the French system so we'd have to establish a ceteris paribus...

is Maths in France compulsory for all students?

Also what do you mean by In the same time,, is that the same amount of total teaching hours per school year?

Also, is that In the same time, taking account of the same amount of subjects studied at LC and final year of the Bac.

Also, more depth in 2014 you propose. I'd be interest to know how you would counter this with teachers already struggling to finish the course for the current phasing of PM as it stands?

ClovisI

seavill wrote: »

here's an opinion, state facts and we might be able to have a proper discussion.

No actual facts to back up your theory and you admit yourself that you have no experience of bad maths teachers, but clearly it is a huge problem based on your experience???

So its the students fault the teacher is bad or did I read that wrong as well?

Good logic there.

I'm not talking about all maths teachers just a minority in case you misunderstood that. What I'm saying is although I don't have first hand experience of this it is certainly problem based on the numbers of unqualified teachers around. In my opinion it is a huge one if only because of how high the stakes are: these young people are the future of the country and there are some potentially brilliant scientific minds sitting in front of teachers who lack a passion for their subject.
When I say it's a cycle I mean that a small number of students who were never very interested in maths end up teaching maths later on despite not being fully qualified.

bdoo

ClovisI wrote: »

seavill wrote: »

here's an opinion, state facts and we might be able to have a proper discussion.

No actual facts to back up your theory and you admit yourself that you have no experience of bad maths teachers, but clearly it is a huge problem based on your experience???

So its the students fault the teacher is bad or did I read that wrong as well?

Good logic there.

I'm not talking about all maths teachers just a minority in case you misunderstood that. What I'm saying is although I don't have first hand experience of this it is certainly problem based on the numbers of unqualified teachers around. In my opinion it is a huge one if only because of how high the stakes are: these young people are the future of the country and there are some potentially brilliant scientific minds sitting in front of teachers who lack a passion for their subject.
When I say it's a cycle I mean that a small number of students who were never very interested in maths end up teaching maths later on despite not being fully qualified.

Maths teachers who don't like maths! Ah come on. Over to conspiracy theories with you.

I teach woodwork, did a nice bit of maths in college but not enough to be officially qualified. Have taught maths in the past. By your reckoning I dislike maths and am a bad maths teacher.

Insightful.

ClovisI

Armelodie wrote: »

Just wondering Clovis, I'm not that familiar with the French system so we'd have to establish a ceteris paribus...

is Maths in France compulsory for all students?

Also what do you mean by In the same time,, is that the same amount of total teaching hours per school year?

Also, is that In the same time, taking account of the same amount of subjects studied at LC and final year of the Bac.

Also, more depth in 2014 you propose. I'd be interest to know how you would counter this with teachers already struggling to finish the course for the current phasing of PM as it stands?

Maths is compulsory for all students.

To be honest I don't know about teaching hours, I'll check that when I have time.

They have 9-10 subjects in 5th year of which they take exams in three, and 6-7 exam subjects in Bac year. (Counting physics-chemistry as two different subjects, I consider the level to be the same as the two in Ireland having experienced both. Similarly I assume History-Geography to be the same level as the two separate subjects here but I can't be sure there).

If you read again you'll find I agree it wouldn't be feasible immediately it would have to be gradual.

ClovisI

bdoo wrote: »

Maths teachers who don't like maths! Ah come on. Over to conspiracy theories with you.

I teach woodwork, did a nice bit of maths in college but not enough to be officially qualified. Have taught maths in the past. By your reckoning I dislike maths and am a bad maths teacher.

Insightful.

To be honest my main issue is with teachers who don't love maths. I agree the qualifications thing is a bit over the top. You shouldn't need a degree in maths to be able to transfer your passion for it to others.
I'm sorry if I seemed hung up on qualifications.

bdoo

ClovisI wrote: »

bdoo wrote: »

Maths teachers who don't like maths! Ah come on. Over to conspiracy theories with you.

I teach woodwork, did a nice bit of maths in college but not enough to be officially qualified. Have taught maths in the past. By your reckoning I dislike maths and am a bad maths teacher.

Insightful.

To be honest my main issue is with teachers who don't love maths. I agree the qualifications thing is a bit over the top. You shouldn't need a degree in maths to be able to transfer your passion for it to others.
I'm sorry if I seemed hung up on qualifications.

Well you did blame unqualified teachers for poor standards in maths. I have had bad doctors bad dentists and bad teachers all of whom we're qualified.

You cannot quantify what a good teacher is by the amount of knowledge of a subject they have. The whole aesthetic of teaching is something which is undervalued and misunderstood it is undermined by applying performance standards that belong in industry to education.

Not everything can be measured, even by a mathematician.

evolving_doors

ClovisI wrote: »

Maths is compulsory for all students.

To be honest I don't know about teaching hours, I'll check that when I have time.

They have 9-10 subjects in 5th year of which they take exams in three, and 6-7 exam subjects in Bac year. (Counting physics-chemistry as two different subjects, I consider the level to be the same as the two in Ireland having experienced both. Similarly I assume History-Geography to be the same level as the two separate subjects here but I can't be sure there).

If you read again you'll find I agree it wouldn't be feasible immediately it would have to be gradual.

Ok, take your points, thanks for clarifying.

ClovisI

bdoo wrote: »

Well you did blame unqualified teachers for poor standards in maths. I have had bad doctors bad dentists and bad teachers all of whom we're qualified.

You cannot quantify what a good teacher is by the amount of knowledge of a subject they have. The whole aesthetic of teaching is something which is undervalued and misunderstood it is undermined by applying performance standards that belong in industry to education.

Not everything can be measured, even by a mathematician.

Of course not. Let me clarify something. When I talk about qualifications, I don't care about the knowledge a teacher has. For me it's rather so they can show how committed they are; I mean surely if someone loves maths to the point of teaching it they'll be interested enough to complete a degree in it (or science/engineering). If they don't it's because
a) They have a stronger vocation for something else, in which case they would be better off doing that, or,
b) They aren't bothered, in which case they shouldn't be teaching (in my opinion).

Then of course there's also the case where they aren't academically up for it. Again, personally I don't think those people should teach.