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).
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”).
using examples such as , and to illustrate the necessity that for any non-zero natural number 𝑛, (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.
One of the black humour aspects of ACARA’s promotion of its new curriculum, and the draft that preceded it, was ACARA declaring ad nauseum that the curriculum had been “refined” and “decluttered”. ACARA’s claim was then repeated ad more nauseum by education
reporters stenographers. Continue reading “New Cur 16: The Decimation of ACARA’s Elaborations”
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:
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)
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”
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:
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 × radius2 as a rough estimate for the area of a circle
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.