There must be a better way of doing this. But, we’re a blogger of very little brain, so we’ll do it this way.
Having slogged our way through the new Mathematics Curriculum, we’ve read enough to realise that we’ll be writing plenty more. It seems worthwhile, there, having a dedicated meta-post for these posts. This is it. (It is and will remain a subset of The ACARA Page.)
Paralleling the ACARA Crash series on the draft curriculum, the majority of the upcoming posts will be in the just-created New Cur series. As indicated below, we’ve slightly retitled three posts to be the beginning of this series.
The Probability stream is, of course, awful, but the awfulness is notably different in character from that of the Statistics. Whereas the statistics is a homogeneous gruel of “data”, with the only mathematical substance being the tiny, tasteless raisins of “median” and its kin, the probability stream has just enough substance to be consistently, solidly stupid.
Note that the Probability stream only begins in Year 3 since, unlike Algebra, the kids need to know a little before considering such concepts.
The Statistics stream is so bad, so vague and thin and aimless and repetitive, the only proper way to appreciate the badness is to read the entire thing. There is likely just one person in Australia stubborn enough to do that: Merchant-Ivory has its Joe Queenan, and ACARA has its Marty. You’re welcome.
We’ve now gone through all the algebra – more accurately, “algebra” – sections of ACARA’s new mathematics curriculum. Parallel to our Worst Number Lines post, the following is our list of the worst algebra lines. Once again, it is important to note that these few lines do not begin to convey the unrelenting stupidity and triviality of the curriculum, but the real question is who invented letters in math?
This is our post for noting local nonsense in the new Australian Mathematics Curriculum (downloads here). It is a list of the content descriptions and the elaborations that appear to be deficient/wrong/misplaced/weird/whatever. It includes anything that has come to our attention and has sufficiently annoyed us and/or others. (This post supersedes a previous post, and the suggestions already made have been incorporated below.) There is no intention to be comprehensive, which would probably entail transcribing 80% of the thing. We’ll just keep adding over time, as awfulnesses come to our attention. Of course criticisms and suggestions and discussion are always welcome, and can be made in the comments. Continue reading “Australian Mathematics Curriculum Awfulnesses”→
We still haven’t gotten to ACARA’s sparkly new curriculum. We do have David de Carvalho, however, to tell us all about its wonderfulness, and the wonderfulness of ACARA’s processes.
A couple weeks ago, De Carvalho was interviewed by Geraldine Doogue on Radio National’s Saturday Extra. Of course, Doogue asked De Carvalho all the tough questions. You can listen yourself, at the link below. Doogue introduces the discussion and De Carvalho as follows:
… primarily, the terms of reference for the new curriculum were to reduce the amount of content, the common ground being that all involved in education thought the previous curriculum was, quote, “a mile wide and an inch deep”. Well, my next guest argues that we now have a more teachable curriculum, that focusses on conceptual understanding …