Once upon a time, we were invited to publicly debate the use of “technology” in mathematics education. The Lord of the Meeting, however, decided that we were not the right kind of person, we were disinvited and plans for the debate ended. Instead, our would-be debating opponent and their mate were granted the platform to spruik to their heart’s content, unchallenged. A shame. Continue reading “PoSWW 21: Des is Mos’ Disturbing”
Category: PoSWW
PoSWW 20: Unconventional Wisdom
This one comes courtesy of frequent commenter, John Friend. It is an example from Cambridge’s Mathematical Methods 34.
UPDATE (19/08/21)
It amazes me at times what does and does not concern some commenters. That’s not intended as a criticism. Well, it is, but it isn’t. And, it is. It’s complicated.
PoSWW 19: Choose Commas
And, perhaps, a decent graphic designer.
PoSWW 18: Inestimable Worth
We’ve whacked Essential Assessment on a previous occasion. Our daughter, who is in Year 4, did some of this nonsense on the week-end. (Our general policy is to let our daughter’s school do its thing, give or take a staged frown and raised eyebrow, and the occasional nudge of the well-meaning and intelligent Principal, but to forbid techno-junk at home. But, with home schooling, and our daughter’s understandable desire to please the beleaguered teacher, we let it go this time.)
PoSWW 17: Blessed are the Cheesemakers
This one is old, which is not in keeping with the spirit of our PoSWWs and WitCHes. And, we’ve already written on it and talked about it. But, as the GOAT PoSWW, it really deserves its own post. It is an exercise from the textbook Heinemann Maths Zone 9 (2011), which does not appear to still exist. (And yes, the accompanying photo appeared alongside the question in the text book.)
PoSWW 16: Not Essential
The questions below come from something called Essential Assessment and, to be upfront, the questions are somewhat misleading. To give EA some micro-credit, not all their questions were this bad, even if plenty more that we’d seen could have been posted. So, EA is not quite as bad as these questions suggest.
On the other hand, EA, like pretty much all teaching-replacement software, appears be utterly aimless and, thus, utterly pointless and, thus, much worse than pointless.
PoSWW 15: Slippery Slope
The question below is from the second 2020 Specialist exam (not online), and was raised by commenter Red Five in the discussion here. This’ll probably turn into a WitCH but, really, the question is so damn stupid, it doesn’t deserve the honour.
PoSWW 14: Offering Real Choices
The question below is from the first 2020 Specialist exam (not online), which is discussed here.
UPDATE (10/09/21) Unsurprisingly, the examination report (Word-doc-stupid-VCAA) fails to address the stupidity.
PoSWW 13: ScoMoFo Flashes His Goebbels
Sure, he’s sadistic, dishonest and an all-round incompetent fuckwit. But what a bloke!
PoSWW 12: They is Bach
There’s much we could write about Matthew Bach, who recently gave up teaching and deputying to become a full-time Liberal clown. But, with great restraint, we’ll keep to ourselves the colourful opinions of Bach’s former school colleagues; we’ll ignore Bach’s sophomoric sense of class and his cartoon-American cry for “freedom”; we’ll just let sit there Bach’s memory of “the sense of optimism in Maggie Thatcher’s Britain”.
Yesterday, Bach had an op-ed in the official organ of the Liberal Party (paywalled, thank God). Titled We must raise our grades on teacher quality, Bach’s piece was the predictable mix of obvious truth and poisonous nonsense, promoting the testing of “numeracy” and so forth. One line, however, stood out as a beacon of Bachism:
“But, as in any profession, a small number of teachers is not up to the mark.”
We is thinking that is very, very true.