A few weeks ago, we stumbled upon a story: an academic in Ireland resigned from a school mathematics curriculum review committee because she had insufficient faith that the committee was properly concerned for mathematics or properly respectful of mathematical expertise. So, yes, we stumbled upon the same story that we keep stumbling upon, time and again, just in a new country.
The Ireland story had been brewing all year, and probably longer, but the headline act was a few weeks ago, when Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin (pronounced, roughly, Aveen Nee Hoolewan), an associate professor of mathematics education at Dublin City University, resigned from the Mathematics Development Group, the committee established by the National Council for Curriculum Assessment to review Ireland’s Leaving mathematics curriculum. This followed the resignation from the MDG in January of Pauline Mellon, a professor of mathematics at DCU. While Mellon left quietly, Ní Shúilleabháin seemingly exited with all guns blazing.
I do not know the deeper details of the Ireland story (and haven’t tried hard), but the interviews and reports indicate the fundamental issues, and certain reported aspects struck the strongest of chords. I could summarise, but it is simplest and best to listen to the excellent interviews with Ní Shúilleabháin (and video below) and Mellon, and to read Ní Shúilleabháin’s opinion piece. There are also very good reports and opinion pieces, here and here and here and here (lots of paywalls). Finally, the current draft curriculum is here, and there are excruciatingly bad interviews with the NCCA bosses and with Hildegarde Naughton, Ireland’s Minister for Education.
Thanks Marty; an interesting topic; I looked briefly at the draft curriculum; I did not like the definition of mutually exclusive events on p. 22 where it is suggested that
and 
are mutually exclusive if 
.
Yes, you did (why?), and I have.
When I submitted the posts it seemed that my submission did not work; so I did it again, and again. Mea culpa. Thanks for deleting the extra posts.
Easy – how to tell a nonsensical curriculum – is it easy to read? Ireland isn’t as bad as Australia (virtually impossible to work out what is taught at what level), but full of nonsensical diagrams and not really easy to understand.
JJ,
I beg to differ. IMO, it is easy to see from the Australian curriculum what is expected to taught at each level.
I hope you’re kidding.
I am not kidding. If I want to know what is expected to be taught in mathematics at a particular level, I just go to the curriculum, follow the links, and it tells me. Not in detail of course – but it’s a fair outline.
Terry, you have lost your mind.
Hi Terry – what is expected at Grade 4 please and could you please explain how you got it as I’ve found it almost impossible to get a simple quick description?
Ugh! JJ, you’re not gonna get a sane answer.
The AC works in the same sense that anything would work, that the vague content descriptions give a vague indication of what is to be taught: linear equations or addition of fractions or whatever. But that’s all it does. It does the most trivial job and does it in the worst, wordiest, most bloated manner conceivable. And if you want the proper, detailed indication of what to teach, then you’re screwed.
Look up
australian curriculum v9
F-10 Curriculum
then look at
Mathematics Year 4
Then you see the syllabus organised by strands: number, algebra, measurement, spaces, statistics, probability
I’d give you a link but I am not sure that links are permitted here.
1. JJ, I told you.
2. Yes, Terry. links are permitted here. But i think it’s be better to leave it as a challenge for the reader, to find the spot for themselves.
3. Terry, you’re nuts.
JJ
I’ll send a link later; currently the site is undergoing maintenance; but also buy a text book that follows the curriculum; IMO, the curriculum allows the teacher a lot of variation in how to present the material, which is fair enough at Year 4 especially since a Year 4 class will have a wide variety of abilities among the students; so a text book might be helpful for details; I have not bought a textbook for Year 4.
1. and 3.
Here is the link.
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/learning-areas/mathematics/year-4?view=quick&detailed-content-descriptions=0&hide-ccp=0&hide-gc=0&load-detailed-content-descriptions=0&side-by-side=1&strands-start-index=0
Thanks Terry – it’s rather high level and descriptive and doesn’t give much detail at all unless you click through. I want to see at a glance what is taught at what level (which I get instantly from Singapore’s). Part of what I learnt in the bureaucracy is that generally if something doesn’t really make sense, it’s because of the underlying issues with it (rather than a failure on my part). It seems woolly and imprecise – precisely the opposite of mathematics.
A challenge for you – at what level are negative numbers introduced?
Grade 6 maybe; I have not taught in primary schools; but this correspondence is tempting me to try
I’m afraid you won’t be able to find it. ‘Negative numbers’ do not appear in the curriculum. From memory, it discusses introducing ‘integers’ at Grade 6.
Two elaborations on the Grade 6 syllabus are:
“extending the number line in the negative direction to locate and represent integers, recognising the difference in location between -2 and + 2 and their relationship to zero as -2 < 0 < 2.”
"recognising that the sign (positive or negative) indicates a direction in relation to zero"
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum.html/learning-areas/mathematics/year-6/content-description?subject-identifier=MATMATY6&content-description-code=AC9M6N01&detailed-content-descriptions=0&hide-ccp=0&hide-gc=0&load-detailed-content-descriptions=0&side-by-side=1&strands-start-index=0&view=quick
True – but it’s pretty abstruse and why just teach -2? A document that looks convoluted and wordy and clumsy usually reflects the fact that the underlying reality is that too!