Attached below is a South Australian syllabus from a while back, which fell off the back of someone’s truck. The “Detailed Syllabus Statements” are for Mathematics 1 and Mathematics 2, which played the roles of VCAA’s current Methods and Specialist subjects.* There is also contained the syllabus for Mathematics 1S, a weaker version of Mathematics 1 for students not also taking Mathematics 2. Because, for example, the idea of Methods-only students being bundled with and competing against Methods-and-Specialist students is an idea so idiotic it could only take proper hold in the 21st Century.
Readers can make what they can of the Syllabus, can compare it to Victoria’s current Study Design, or to whatever. The purpose for posting the Syllabus, however, is not to compare the curricula but to compare the documents.
Following on from our previous post, compare what SSABSA did in 33 pages with what VCAA does now in 120 pages (for four subjects rather than three). Is there any sense in which VCAA’s legalistic-plus-Deeper-Meaning approach, in which the extra 87 pages, is worth the effort of either the writers or the readers? Even if so, in sum does the micro-legalistic approach add or subtract from the guidance and the usefulness of the document, and from the promotion of a proper mathematical culture?
Anyone who wishes to argue the case for the nitpick-and-sermon approach to a senior mathematics curriculum is welcome to give it a go.
*) SSABSA did not at the time pretend that Further Mathematics or General Mathematics, or whatever, was part of the same mathematical world.
It’s interesting that even back then, it wasn’t possible to just take just one subject that was the hardest, mathsiest maths. In certificates that only require 4 subjects, this seems like an underdiscussed problem.
I always thought that Specialist was meant to be a harder version of Methods, sort of, but I talked to a very experienced teacher, 20+ years teaching senior maths, knew her stuff, and she said “no that’s a common misconception, it’s not harder at all, it’s just more content (i.e. more stuff you have to learn)”
It’s definitely harder. For the kids who are good at spesh, methods is largely a waste of their time.
Um, the “for the kids who are good at spesh” is redundant.
I agree with your experienced teacher. Harder / Easier is the wrong scale. Better is more vs less abstract. That’s why you have to do methods (or have equivalent learning*) to do specialist – you need to build the base knowledge, ready to step up the ladder of abstraction a bit.
* leaving out comments about whether methods is the best vehicle we can make for the required maths knowledge