Following on from our previous post, it is worth considering the role of Roman numerals in the new Curriculum. There isn’t one.

## New Cur 19: Turning Japanese

This is a short one and, necessarily, is WitCH-like. It is an elaboration in the new Curriculum that smelled wrong to us. We checked enough to confirm there was sufficient wrongness for the elaboration to be added to the Awfulnesses list, but we haven’t sorted it out further. The comments may be interesting (or non-existent).

## New Cur 18: To be two, or not to be 2

This one may be of little interest to others, but it’s been bugging us.

A peculiar puzzle of writing mathematics is deciding when to use names and when to use numerals: should we write “two” or “2”? There is no one (1?) answer, and there are conflicting principles. Along with other rules, English style guides instruct that names should be used for small numbers, and numerals for large (with varying interpretations of “small” and “large”).

## New Cur 17: Natural Selection

A few weeks ago, we posted on a klutzy index law elaboration in the new curriculum:

using examples such as , and to illustrate the necessity that for any non-zero natural number đť‘›, Â (new AC9M8N02)

Some commenters were understandably puzzled by a side point: ACARA’s employment of the expression “non-zero natural number”. In this post, we’ll dispel any lingering lack of puzzlement.

## New Cur 15: The Vastness of Space

As was our previous post, this one concerns a very small but very telling detail of the new mathematics curriculum. A minor perversion of the curriculum is the renaming of the study of geometry as “Space”. This stupidity was noted by AMSI last year, in their submission on the draft curriculum:

## New Cur 14: Moving the Decimal Point, and Other Sins

The Year 6 Number stream of the new mathematics Curriculum contains a notable content descriptor:

multiply and divide decimals by multiples of powers of 10 without a calculator, applying knowledge of place value and proficiency with multiplication facts; using estimation and rounding to check the reasonableness of answers (AC9M6N06)Â

## New Cur 13: A Probable Grand Slam

A project upon which we spent a lot of time was listing all the “awful” lines in the new mathematics Curriculum. Readers have not paid much attention, but that’s understandable, and readers were not really the point. Compiling the list has given us a clearer sense of the absurd nature of the Curriculum, the list has been and will be the basis for more specific posts, and the list is there ready for the future: next year, when the Curriculum kicks in and people start to realise just how bad it is, we’ll be ready with the “We told you so”. Continue reading “New Cur 13: A Probable Grand Slam”

## New Cur 12: A Futile Quad Wrangle

This one comes courtesy of commenter jono, who pointed out the absence of quadrilaterals in the f-6 part of the new Curriculum. jono noted that the terms “rhombus” and “kite” and “parallelogram” and Trapezium” are not once mentioned, and that the single mention of “quadrilateral” is in a Year 1 Space elaboration:

## New Cur 11: Circling Reason

Just for a change, this post will be about a good aspect of new Curriculum. Just kidding. Sort of.

The following is an elaboration and associated content descriptor from Year 8 Measurement:

solve problems involving the circumference and area of a circle using formulas and appropriate units (AC9M8M03)

deducing that the area of a circle is between 2 radius squares and 4 radius squares, and using 3 Ă— radius2 as a rough estimate for the area of a circleÂ

There are two ways one might react to this elaboration. First, one might justifiably have no idea what is the meaning or intent of the elaboration, and then conclude that the curriculum was written by idiots. Or, one could recognise that the elaboration is at least attempting something good but that the attempt was an abject failure, and then conclude that the curriculum was written by idiots. All roads lead to Rome.