Advice for new teacher teaching Math

[Unregistered]

Help! I need some advice. I graduated in May 2004 with a Secondary Business Education degree (B.S.E.d.), but could not find a position in that area. So, I'm going to be teaching Pre - Algebra (9th Vocational level) and Algebra 1 (10th - College Prep). I'm a bit overwhelmed at this point. Any suggestions, hints, advice, etc. is MUCH appreciate

[Jenny]

If you want a Business teaching job, you're going to wait awhile.

I would spend sometime looking at my curriculum and start to plan a calendar for the year with the time you have left.

[Unregistered]

Don't teach math. Teach students.
And don’t teach from your butt, move around and interact with your students. I don’t mean to bash my math-teaching friends, but most of the math teachers I have met are arrogant, self righteous, and do more damage than anything else. Your job is to make students understand the material, not to meet some arbitrary deadline dictated to you by your department. Make it interesting, if you're bored, trust me, they are too. Remember, just because it's the way we’ve always done it DONT make it right. Pre test, find out where your students are at now and go from there. Set realistic goals and specific boundaries that your students understand, and remember why you’re there, and if it ain’t workin…………you change, they’re not gonna! Good Luck.

Jeff@jeffslough.com

[Judy]

Don't take it personally that the students are not ready for algebra.

For the college bound you can try to motivate them by showing samples from SATs.(They will have to demonstrate math proficiency on that test.)

For the vocational try math games...in other words...make it fun.

The most successful students are usually supported by their parents. These will be a minority group. You might ask them to help.

Start planning your exit strategy unless your tolerance for frustration is high. Most people don't understand algebra no matter how it is presented.

[Unregistered]

In the search to find interesting ideas I came across your question. One of the books I would recommend is Dave Johnsons' Making minutes Count and Making Minutes Count even more. There are some good organizational ideas in both. Ron Clark's web page on the essential 55 has several links that you can use with multi-levels. Also your book's publisher should have a web site with ideas. The biggest thing in your vocational classes will be making it real to the student. Go to the Math Forum and search for some ideas to help. Ask the other math teachers how they might broach topics and what ideas they have. Kids of all ages like scavenger hunts. There are some posted on the web and you can create your own. The AIMS materials that most science teachers have are also great resources for the age group you are talking about. Ask those other teachers for help-most are willing to share their ideas. You can always take an idea and make it work for you. You will find that your knowledge of banking and finance will give you great ideas for Pre-ALg. Have you thought about letting your kids play the stock market game competition on the internet? Best of Luck coonman12@wmconnect.com

[Unregistered]

1. Be prepared for the possibility of a W I D E variety of insufficient pre-requisite skill levels walking in your door. I was a little dismayed at just how weak some of them were.

2. Don't try to re-invent the wheel your first time out. Take advantage of existing lesson plans, borrowed resources, and internet sources (...kinda' like this one...) You can always fine tune the ones that work for you later.

3. Depending on the location and demographics of the school you're assigned to, you should also be prepared for a wide range of student motivations. Remember that things are different from when you went to school. My school site is fairly low end of the socio-economic scale, and hard core, college bound eager beavers are scarce. Even at high end schools, you'll still be asked several times, "why do we have to learn this s[tuff]?!", or "when am I ever going to need this?" Ask some of your colleagues for their responses. (Mine is,"I don't know...What are you going to be doing twenty years from now?") ( I've actually started some interesting discussions with that one..)

4. Live for those moments when you "see the little light go on over their heads". My greatest satisfaction comes when a struggling students blurts out, "Oh! I get it!!" And don't let it get you down if they don't.

[faheem]

teach every single numeric & symbol as the part of the real life.Attach Nummerical Values to the the Real life objects.Mathmatical things are lot more related to the real life concepts than any abstract things.
if i can help in any way related to mathmatical learning; mail at faheem_si@hotmail.com
(Mathmatical model Designer)

[Unregistered]

1. If the students still need to learn to multiply - then teach them how to multiply. Make sure you teach them at their level, regardless of curriculum.

2. Give assignments on worksheet rather than out of textbooks. Then use some these exact questions on a quiz. Then after 3 quizzes, use the exact same 3 quiz questions on the test. Results: Better marks since students know exactly what is on the test. Better attendance since students know that assignments become quizzes which become tests. Less prep time since we simply change the title from assignment to quiz to test. I call it the PC Hanna system.

[Unregistered]

1. If the students still need to learn to multiply - then teach them how to multiply. Make sure you teach them at their level, regardless of curriculum.

If students at a particular grade level are expected to know how to divide by polynomials, then that is what you need to teach them. Teaching "to their level" is an easy way for them to get behind. That isn't fair, since colleges don't dumb down their curriculum accordingly.

The state standards prescribe what is grade-level appropriate, and that determines what is expected of them. Otherwise, they will always be behind the rest of society.

[Unregistered]

If students at a particular grade level are expected to know how to divide by polynomials, then that is what you need to teach them. Teaching "to their level" is an easy way for them to get behind. While this is true, you still have to teach at the students' levels. If you walk in to class, put an example [12x + 15y/3x + 3y] on the board and start explaining how to solve it, but some kids have no clue what 12x is in the first place,(for whatever reason it is that they are in a class that should have known this stuff, yet they still don't -- Believe me. It happens often.) you DO have to give an introductary lesson on breaking down polynomials before teaching them to divide. You will still be teaching them the material they are required to know - at its fullest extent, you are just insuring that it's in their "language" too!
That isn't fair, since colleges don't dumb down their curriculum accordingly.No, but if you teach kids - at their level - how to learn about, and solve polynomials etc. (even if it requires three introductory lessons of simpler math) then they'll be able to pick up the threads of college level math too.
The problem with most education (at least the one I received) is that teachers teach a bunch of material put on the standards, curriculum, or whatever else you want to dubb it, as opposed to teaching the kids HOW to learn it on their own.
Teaching how to learn is truly an art which all teachers should master, if they want to consider themselves effective.
The state standards prescribe what is grade-level appropriate, and that determines what is expected of them. Otherwise, they will always be behind the rest of society. While it is true that we have to have expectations of our students, we cannot just teach them based on an assumption of our expectations. It is our job and responsibility as teachers/educators to give our students the tools to be able to keep up with the expectations of the standards, or whatever, and develop the necessary skills and knowledge that they will need to get through (college, and then) life.

[Unregistered]

While this is true, you still have to teach at the students' levels. If you walk in to class, put an example [12x + 15y/3x + 3y] on the board and start explaining how to solve it, but some kids have no clue what 12x is in the first place,(for whatever reason it is that they are in a class that should have known this stuff, yet they still don't -- Believe me. It happens often.) you DO have to give an introductary lesson on breaking down polynomials before teaching them to divide.

Well, if a teacher thinks the students need a five-minute mini-lesson on polynomials, then I agree. But too often teachers just re-teach the previous grade. Grade-level content must be the predominant lesson content for the entire semester -- reviews should only cover what is absolutely necessary for them to understand the current lesson.

So I think your argument is reasonable, but could be misconstrued.

[Unregistered]

Don't teach math. Teach students.
And don’t teach from your butt, move around and interact with your students. I don’t mean to bash my math-teaching friends, but most of the math teachers I have met are arrogant, self righteous, and do more damage than anything else. Your job is to make students understand the material, not to meet some arbitrary deadline dictated to you by your department. Make it interesting, if you're bored, trust me, they are too. Remember, just because it's the way we’ve always done it DONT make it right. Pre test, find out where your students are at now and go from there. Set realistic goals and specific boundaries that your students understand, and remember why you’re there, and if it ain’t workin…………you change, they’re not gonna! Good Luck.

Jeff@jeffslough.com

i believe i have heard of this during a seminar or workshop..

i believe you always teach both... the "subject" and the "students"

"WHAT" do you you teach? ---MATHEMATICS

"WHO(M)" do you teach?----STUDENTS

[Unregistered]

Well, if a teacher thinks the students need a five-minute mini-lesson on polynomials, then I agree. But too often teachers just re-teach the previous grade. Grade-level content must be the predominant lesson content for the entire semester -- reviews should only cover what is absolutely necessary for them to understand the current lesson.
So I think your argument is reasonable, but could be misconstrued.

Students can take advantage of a teacher that will stop and review things in class. What's easier than playing dumb? They know that a teacher can't have a whole bunch of failing grades in their class.
I agree with the above poster (and also the one that mentioned that a class can get so far behind if all you do is worry about teaching the students at their level instead of what is prescribed for the grade level).

The solution is to make the the core subjects the focus of education again. What happened to "the three Rs"? Years ago classes were 55 minutes long. Now they are only 45 in many schools to make room for things like "athletics", "journalism", "speech", "Web page design" (and my favorite, "advanced underwater Web page design").
I could be a Web page designer and I went to H.S. before they even had computers with CRTs in the classroom. The only access to computers that I had in school was one of those teletype terminals that hooked up to some remote computer one hundred miles away.
I bet there are many great public speakers that never took an H.S. speech course. Look at how bad Journalism is today compared to the past. Now there's something to think about. Is it good that schools are funneling so much time into courses such as "Journalism"?
As for "athletics", do I really need to comment on that (sorry coaches...).

[Unregistered]

The solution is to make the the core subjects the focus of education again.

And they are. The state content standards are renewing the emphasis on basic skills and concepts. In many states, such as California, the standards are quite rigorous, yet attainable. And that is a good thing.

[Unregistered]

The state content standards are renewing the emphasis on basic skills and concepts. In many states, such as California, the standards are quite rigorous, yet attainable. And that is a good thing.
"Basic" skills should not be "quite rigorous".
"Basic" skills should not involve very much critical thinking. Critical thinking is the push in the "standards".
Maybe I subscribe too much to Piaget. He is the one that said that the elementary and early adolescence stage is thinking at the "concrete" level and only in the Adolescence and adulthood stage is the "abstract critical" thinking level.
Most students in High School have not reached adulthood!
Here is a qoute from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html
"Only 35% of high school graduates in industrialized countries obtain formal operations; many people do not think formally during adulthood."
Combined with the "left brain, right brain" research, I think it is clear that "rigorous" mathematics is not truly "attainable" by everyone. If it is "attainable", then how do you explain "scale scoring"? Students can still pass the test and only be able to perform 50% of the stuff on the test.

[Unregistered]

"Basic" skills should not be "quite rigorous".
"Basic" skills should not involve very much critical thinking. Critical thinking is the push in the "standards".
Maybe I subscribe too much to Piaget. He is the one that said that the elementary and early adolescence stage is thinking at the "concrete" level and only in the Adolescence and adulthood stage is the "abstract critical" thinking level.

Piaget never proved his theorem. So why are you so sure that he is correct? Frankly, I think Piaget is full of ****.

Combined with the "left brain, right brain" research, I think it is clear that "rigorous" mathematics is not truly "attainable" by everyone.

Here are the content standards for Algebra I:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/mthalgebra1.asp

Let's get to specifics. Which of these standards would you define as rigorous and, therefore, not teachable to the masses?

What about this one...

12.0 Students simplify fractions with polynomials in the numerator and denominator by factoring both and reducing them to the lowest terms.

More important question: What should we teach instead?

[Unregistered]

Do you think that everybody needs to know how to
"simplify fractions with polynomials in the numerator and denominator by factoring both and reducing them to the lowest terms."?
True, most college degrees now require this knowledge. However, not all (or do they?).
When is the last time that you NEEDED to simplify fractions with polynomials in the numerator and denominator by factoring both and reducing them to the lowest terms in your EVERYDAY life?
Maybe simplifying fractions with polynomials in the numerator and denominator by factoring both and reducing them to the lowest terms is obtainable by everyone but I think you will agree that it could take some people longer to 'get it' than other people. What about those that can't 'get it' until they are in their 20s?

[Unregistered]

Do you think that everybody needs to know how to "simplify fractions with polynomials in the numerator and denominator by factoring both and reducing them to the lowest terms."?

True, most college degrees now require this knowledge. However, not all (or do they?).

Since when have we decided which majors our students will complete in college?

It is not fair to withhold content from students simply because we don't think they will become mathematicians, or engineers, or scientists. If a student enrolls in Algebra, then we must assume that they might some day enter a major that needs these skills.

This is what I mean by equal opportunity. We should give everyone an equal opportunity to become a scientist. Not all will, but at least their high school teacher didn't make that decision for them by refusing to teach certain content.

When is the last time that you NEEDED to simplify fractions with polynomials in the numerator and denominator by factoring both and reducing them to the lowest terms in your EVERYDAY life?

Last summer, when I helped supervise an undergraduate's research at a nearby college.

But that isn't the point. We simplify functions containing numerators and denominators because it tells us important information about the function. For example, if the denominator of a function has (x-2)(x-4) in it, then we could assume that the fraction behaves badly (diverges) at x=4, as well as x=2. But if the numerator containts a (x-4), then the fraction diverges only at x=2 because the (x-4) expressions cancel. Without the ability to simplify, the (x-4) term would have stayed in the denominator and we would have formed the wrong impression of how the function behaves.

Therefore, you cannot formulate the true meaning of many algebraic expressions without this skill.

One more point: f(x) = (x^2 - 4x + 4)/(x-2) to an algebra student looks difficult to plot. How many would guess that the plot is nothing more than a straight line?

Maybe simplifying fractions with polynomials in the numerator and denominator by factoring both and reducing them to the lowest terms is obtainable by everyone but I think you will agree that it could take some people longer to 'get it' than other people. What about those that can't 'get it' until they are in their 20s?

Well, all of my students except two got it this year. I am not going to refrain from teaching important content simply because two students struggled with it.

And these two students at least were given a chance to learn it (and still learned a great deal of the rest of the standards). If you don't teach it, none of them can learn it.

Students cannot learn what they have not been taught.

[Unregistered]

Yes, you do have good points.
I went off the deep end.
I had, in my mind, the "two
students" that you mentioned.
Clearly, just because they didn't
understand the simplifying algebraic
fractions doesn't mean they can't
graduate.
It is just that the stakes are getting
so high for these standardized tests.
I wonder what schools do with a
senior that doesn't pass after repeated
tries? Do they still give a "certificate
of completion" in lieu of a "diploma"?

[Unregistered]

I don't think he gets anything. I'm not sure he deserves anything. He can still take the GED (in California, at least) and earn the equivalence of a high school diploma. The GED is a fairly easy exam. With a GED, he could enroll in junior college.

Future high school graduates will need to shore up their writing and math skills in order to compete. Today you can check out your items at Home Depot without the aid of a cashier. Do you need anyone to pump gas in your car? Someday the entire burger-making operation will be automated -- just pick a few buttons and the machine will make it for you. Those without solid skills in rigorous coursework will be left without jobs, so we have to design a curriculum and standards accordingly.

[Unregistered]

I believe I am not as much off the deep end as you are.
The ENTIRE burger making process will never be fully automated.
Who is going to bring the raw meat to the restaurant? Who is going to load the ingredients into the "machine"?
The key word in your comment, "Today you can check out your items at Home Depot without the aid of a cashier." is 'CAN'. I think that stores are still going to have cashiers. The number of them will not be decreased. There are just more people in this country now and the "automated cashier" is necessary to cut down on the lines, for the people that want to do things "fast".
Back when computers were first becoming part of everyday life, the thinking from people like you was "Life will be so much easier. Paper use will be cut way back". Well, the opposite is true. Life is not easier. It has just gotten 'faster'. Work is expected to be done in shorter periods of time (might I say that students are expected to learn math more quickly). Certainly, as every secretary know, paper use has not decreased.

[Unregistered]

I believe I am not as much off the deep end as you are.
The ENTIRE burger making process will never be fully automated.

Sure, but you can certainly cut the number of staff by a factor of three-fourths. Where does that lead the three-fourths that cannot find a job?

Buying an automated hamburger will be cheaper, faster, and the machine won't screw up the order nearly as often. At first it will be a novelty. But so was McDonald's at one time.

The first person to perfect this technology will make a fortune. And he will probably need math skills to do it.

The key word in your comment, "Today you can check out your items at Home Depot without the aid of a cashier." is 'CAN'. I think that stores are still going to have cashiers. The number of them will not be decreased. There are just more people in this country now and the "automated cashier" is necessary to cut down on the lines, for the people that want to do things "fast".

How many people have pumped your gas in the last two years? I live in California and I can safely say "ZERO."

ZERO. I cannot remember a time that anyone pumped my gas in the last two years. I think I have given money to a cashier at a gas station just a handful of times during that time. Yet I would have laughed twenty years ago at the thought that people could drive into a gas station after it had closed, pump gas, and pay for it.

Your logic with the cashiers has a fatal flaw: As the number of people rises, the number of cashiers would have to rise by the same factor to keep people employed in the same capacity. But the trend is in the opposite direction.

In the forseeable future, a grocery store will have twenty machines checking out products and one or two regular cashiers to tend to troublesome sales. Machines don't have unions.

There are a billion people in India willing to do our grunt work. Think about telemarketers. Sooner or later, Indians will flood the telemarketing field, and where will that leave potential telemarketers in this country?

There is simply too much in it for those who own these stores to turn their backs on technology.

Back when computers were first becoming part of everyday life, the thinking from people like you was "Life will be so much easier. Paper use will be cut way back". Well, the opposite is true. Life is not easier. It has just gotten 'faster'. Work is expected to be done in shorter periods of time (might I say that students are expected to learn math more quickly). Certainly, as every secretary know, paper use has not decreased.

Paper use has probably decreased by a great deal. When is the last time you had to make carbon copies? When is the last time you had to write a memo on paper to a colleague? If paper use has increased, it is only because modern computers and printers make the creation of documents very easy. Remember the chore of typing? How easy was it to make 50 copies of a document back in 1960?

[Unregistered]

The comments about technology back in the 60's and Indians intrigues me.
I know these are unconnected in different posts
First, the technology in the 60's---Just because there is a vast increase in electronic technology doesn't mean that everyone needs to know a high level of math. Quite the contrary, society in general needs to know less math. Things are made simpler. It is the people that invent the technologies and/or market them that need the math background.
Take the example of self-serve grocery check-out lines. It was good to know basic math when you had a human cashier ringing things up and making change. They could short-change you. However, with the automation, a person doesn't need to know math to check what is being totaled up.
As with computers, when they first came out, you needed to be able to program them (or some kind of skill in 'logic'). Now computers can be used by even the most severly learning disabled.
Second, the Indians taking over the tele-marketing industry. Are you saying that telemarketers don't need math? Are you saying that Indians are well suited for telemarketing (this borders on racism....). This got me to thinking in general. The problem that we have today in education is that we are assuming that ALL people are truly interested in math and can 'do' math at high levels. This is simply NOT true. Back 100 years ago, how many children were doing algebra? A VERY small number. Has the human brain evolved in the past 100 years to make an increase in the percentage of humans have the ability to perform higher math concepts?
How about 200 years ago? No one drove cars but now MOST people do. NOT ALL, though. Can we expect ALL people to 'do' math? More children can 'do' math now (of course) but I don't think it is a skill that EVERYONE has.

[Unregistered]

The comments about technology back in the 60's and Indians intrigues me.
I know these are unconnected in different posts
First, the technology in the 60's---Just because there is a vast increase in electronic technology doesn't mean that everyone needs to know a high level of math. Quite the contrary, society in general needs to know less math. Things are made simpler. It is the people that invent the technologies and/or market them that need the math background.
Take the example of self-serve grocery check-out lines. It was good to know basic math when you had a human cashier ringing things up and making change.[/quote]

But this is not a high level of math. I wasn't referring to 1st-grade arithmetic in my earlier post.

Second, the Indians taking over the tele-marketing industry. Are you saying that telemarketers don't need math? Are you saying that Indians are well suited for telemarketing (this borders on racism....). This got me to thinking in general. The problem that we have today in education is that we are assuming that ALL people are truly interested in math and can 'do' math at high levels. This is simply NOT true.

Based on what? How are you defining "high level"?

More children can 'do' math now (of course) but I don't think it is a skill that EVERYONE has.

No, but it is a skill that they can learn.

[Unregistered]

The comments about technology back in the 60's and Indians intrigues me.
I know these are unconnected in different posts
First, the technology in the 60's---Just because there is a vast increase in electronic technology doesn't mean that everyone needs to know a high level of math. Quite the contrary, society in general needs to know less math. Things are made simpler. It is the people that invent the technologies and/or market them that need the math background.
Take the example of self-serve grocery check-out lines. It was good to know basic math when you had a human cashier ringing things up and making change.

But this is not a high level of math. I wasn't referring to 1st-grade arithmetic in my earlier post.



Based on what? How are you defining "high level"?



No, but it is a skill that they can learn.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I believe that there are some things that some people just can not learn. You must be one of those people that subscribe to the phrase "you can be whatever you want to be". There is a student that I have in one of my classes that wants to be an artist in Japan.
He doesn't draw that well and I have no idea where he would get the money to go to Japan in the first place.
As for what I mean "high level", really it is anything beyond first semester Algebra. Even at that, I tend to think "Algebra" is a high level.

[Unregistered]

I disagree. I believe that there are some things that some people just can not learn.

Suppose you're right. Now, when do you make the decision that a particular student cannot learn the math and is, therefore, a candidate to be placed in an alternative track?

And do you make that decision? Does the child? Parents?

Sure, if a kid has an IQ of 80 then he will always struggle with any advanced concept, just like a blind man cannot learn to play pool. But I am talking about the average kid here, not a select few.

Most of the time the lack of math skills is caused by a lack of good teaching methodology.

In my opinion, math is not difficult to learn. The problem is

1. Poor teaching methods.
2. Lack of confidence (often caused by the poor teaching methods).
3. Lack of ambition (often caused by the lack of confidence, which is often caused by poor teaching methods).

I certainly think grade-level math content is easier to learn than grade-level language arts content, and easier to teach. In fact, I think math is possibly the easiest subject to teach, and I'm a math teacher. But that's my opinion.

You must be one of those people that subscribe to the phrase "you can be whatever you want to be". There is a student that I have in one of my classes that wants to be an artist in Japan.
He doesn't draw that well and I have no idea where he would get the money to go to Japan in the first place.

I am not sure how Japan factors into this discussion, but you are now elevating the discussion to include skills at the professional level. I am not saying that every kid can be mathematician. Not every kid can be a PROFESSIONAL artist. But can any kid learn the fundamentals of art and, with enough practice, turn out art of reasonable quality? I think so, assuming the kid doesn't have any blatant motor skill issues and receives quality instruction.

As for what I mean "high level", really it is anything beyond first semester Algebra. Even at that, I tend to think "Algebra" is a high level.

What topic in algebra do you think is out-of-bounds for a significant portion of your class (say, 20%)?

How do you know that these kids cannot learn the content with a different approach to instruction?

[Unregistered]

I agree with what you say.
Not everyone has the ability to become a professional mathematician.
Also, you are correct, when you put the cut-off at "20%" of students, there is nothing in Algebra that the "average" student should not be able to understand.
What state do you teach in? Does your state have an 'exit' test that is required for graduation?
I teach in TX.
Here is a list of the math objectives that they need to be able to do with 70% proficiency:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter111/ch111c.html#111.33
Now, when you put the cut-off at "20%" of students, does that mean that 20% of the average student should not graduate high school because of their lack of understanding math (keep in mind that your "20%" comment assumed 'good teaching' and 'not learning disabled in math')?

[Unregistered]

I agree with what you say.
Not everyone has the ability to become a professional mathematician.
Also, you are correct, when you put the cut-off at "20%" of students, there is nothing in Algebra that the "average" student should not be able to understand.
What state do you teach in? Does your state have an 'exit' test that is required for graduation?

California, and yes it does.

Now, when you put the cut-off at "20%" of students, does that mean that 20% of the average student should not graduate high school because of their lack of understanding math (keep in mind that your "20%" comment assumed 'good teaching' and 'not learning disabled in math')?

The 80% number I threw out because it is my own measure of proficiency for each lesson. The state requires proficiency on the exit exam at roughly 70%. I think that is a reasonable goal. Those that cannot get above a D on the entire exam should have to take the exam over again, in my opinion. Otherwise, what standards have we set?

[Unregistered]

May I ask what subjects you teach (currently this year)?
What percentage of your students have failed a state test from the year before?
What is the percentage of your students that pass the test?
The school that I teach at has a rate of about 60% of students pass the state test.
By the time their Senior year rolls around, though, they seem to get motivated and most pass the EXIT test. Once in a while, there is the occassional student that gets just a "certificate of completion" (not passing all subject tests).
I currently teach 7th and 8th grade math, Algebra 1 and 2, Geometry and PreCalculus/Trigonometry.

[Unregistered]

May I ask what subjects you teach (currently this year)?

Two sessions of Algebra I, one session of physics, and one physics lab.

What percentage of your students have failed a state test from the year before?

Not sure. But the number is probably high, as the middle school that feeds into our high school had only 10% of its students score Proficient or above in math.

What is the percentage of your students that pass the test?

I had a total of 52 Algebra I students last year. Two did not take the exam. Three scored Below Proficient. Thirty-four scored Proficient. The remainder scored Above Proficient.

[Unregistered]

You have very good results. Do you generally follow a textbook or do you pull work from many different sources?
Three classes (two different subjects) and one lab sounds like a great schedule. Is this considered full time at your school? It would be considered half time at my school.

[Unregistered]

I also work as a educational resource coordinator. And the physics lab encompasses two periods.

I make up my own problem sets and lesson plans. The independent work I assign out of the textbook, although I am careful not to assign any problems I have not taught them how to complete.

[Unregistered]

I understand now why we have different viewpoints. I would not even begin to have time to make up my own problem sets. The subjects that I have are:
1. 7th grade math
2. 8th grade math
3. Pre-Algebra
4. Algebra I
5. Geometry
6. Algebra II
7. Pre-Calculus
I have different students for each class. I am assuming that you work with only three different sets of students.
It makes a big difference.
In the past, I have had schedules that come close to yours (teaching 3 different subjects but still having 6 different sets of students).
What does an "educational resource coordinator" do?

[Unregistered]

The subjects that I have are:
1. 7th grade math
2. 8th grade math
3. Pre-Algebra
4. Algebra I
5. Geometry
6. Algebra II
7. Pre-Calculus

Let me get this straight... you have seven different classes with no prep period? And these seven math classes extend from seventh grade to high school junior level?

Yeah, right.

What does an "educational resource coordinator" do?

I help other teachers write lesson plans, and then I offer them feedback after watching them teach. I also set the pacing calendar.

[Unregistered]

I have 6 classes. The 8th grade is combined with the Pre-Algebra class (there are a some 9th graders that weren't ready for Algebra I) so they put them in with the 8th grade class and called it Pre-Algebra). However, I find that I need to teach two different subjects in that class because some of the students are ready for Pre-Algebra but some are back at the 5th grade level so I do the state's 8th grade material with them.
The curriculums are not very different but there are some things that the Pre-Algebra has that 8th grade doesn't.
I do have one prep period (we have a 7 period schedule). The periods are 45 minutes each. There is a tutorial period that is 30 minutes at the end of school. Basically, this adds 2 more things that I have to prepare for because there are two rotating sets of students that come for tutorials.
So, yes, I do have students ranging from 7th grade to 11th grade. I would have seniors also (I did last year) but all the Juniors passed the EXIT test last year and they elected not to take a math class (thank goodness!). The Pre-Calculus class that I have is made up of Juniors that took Algebra 2 last year as Sophomores.
Do you have this "straight" yet?
This is why I said your schedule would be considered half time here. Actually, it would probably not even be looked at as a paid position. The only way to get a schedule such as yours would be a volunteer position. They wouldn't even think about paying for such a simple schedule.

[Unregistered]

Let me guess: You also have to show up an hour early to sweep the chimneys and polish the floors, right?

Where are the fifth and sixth graders? Or do you teach them in an after-school program?

Do you cut the Superintendent's lawn over the weekends?

They wouldn't even think about paying for such a simple schedule.

Which is why I don't work for your school district.

Now, I would like to know how this silly "my job is tougher than your job" argument got started in the first place. Who cares?

[Unregistered]

I did not mean to imply anything such as "my job is tougher than your job". I had two reasons for saying what I did:
1. This thread was started by someone that was thinking about getting into teaching. I just wanted to point out that there is a wide range of teaching schedules and the author needs to ask about the schedule that may be given to them if hired.
2. I was interested in your students' state test results. I found it amazing that you could turn 10% passing rate into 90% passing rate. I believe that I could do the same if I only had to develop lessons for 3 different classes. Oh, I know how time consuming doing Physics labs can be. I have also taught Physics. However, the Physics classes I have taught did not include extra time for labs as yours does.
By the way, yes, I have been asked to cut school property lawn! It is funny that you mentioned that!

[Unregistered]

Uhhh, I was given the ERC position because of my high test scores. To turn it around and say that my high test scores are a result of being given the ERC position is putting the cart before the horse. Do you really think that I have had this ERC position for my entire teaching career?

I wouldn't say that my students had only a 10% passing rate coming in. I really don't know how they did. The school most of them came from only had a 10% passing rate, but that may not mean much. I have no idea how they did before they came into my classroom and I really don't care.

I did not mean to imply anything such as "my job is tougher than your job".

Here is what you stated:

This is why I said your schedule would be considered half time here. Actually, it would probably not even be looked at as a paid position.

Sounds like one-upmanship to me.

I believe that I could do the same if I only had to develop lessons for 3 different classes.

Ye olde "If only..." game. "My students would do great if only...

... I was paid more.
... the NCLB would disappear.
... the district would leave me alone.
... I wasn't evaluated so often.
... my students would behave.
... the parents would get off my back.

By the way, math is probably the easiest subject to teach in terms of workload. I would rather prepare lessons for six math classes than three ELA classes, and I'm a math teacher. I certainly would rather grade the math lessons than a stack of essays.

[Unregistered]

You certainly do seem to get defensive all the time. I don't believe that I am being offensive (well, not as much as you are being defensive).
"This is why I said your schedule would be considered half time here. Actually, it would probably not even be looked at as a paid position." does not mean that my job is any tougher than yours. I just stated the facts. Half time and volunteer positions can be just as tough as full time paid positions. It is all relative...
Certainly, given fewer preps, a teacher can do a better job. This is not "one
up-manship". It is just a fact.
As a matter of fact, I had one of the highest passing rates in the region for the "EOC Algebra I" state exams.
I don't belive that I have ever stated anything about
... I was paid more.
... the NCLB would disappear.
... the district would leave me alone.
... I wasn't evaluated so often.
... my students would behave.
... the parents would get off my back.
Sounds a little defensive again....

[Unregistered]

I wonder whatever happened to these two. The arguments are interesting...

[Kruegs1982]

At my school I only had 2 preps which was great! I taught at a ninth grade school in inner city Houston which has it's own set of problems. Just getting the students to come to school is a chore in itself. Don't even ask how often I talk to parents because half of my parents don't speak English, yet I am required to find the time to get a translator and call all these parents as to how their child is doing while I prepare for all my classes, grade papers, etc. in a 45 minute prep period.

My point is that none of our jobs are easy. It takes a special person to be a teacher. I am interested to know how many students are in each of their schools. My school is just 9th grade and has over 1000 kids. My assumption is that the teacher with 7 preps teaches at a very small school and may be the only math teacher (this has many advantages in itself), and the teacher with 3 preps teaches at a large school that needs a coordinator (my school has a math specialist and that's her sole job).

Each job has its advantages and disadvantages. Just because one person has 7 preps and another has 3 preps doesn't make either job easier.

[Unregistered]

I was the teacher with 7 preps. You are correct, I am teaching at a very small school. I state that I "was" the teacher with 7 preps. I now just have 4. I told administration that I would like to just be half-time. They didn't argue with that since it would save them money. They put 7th and 8th grade math to the Junior High teacher (she is the science teacher for grades 3-8) and the PreCalculus/trig class is being taught through Distance Learning (the student occassionally comes to me for some help but not very often).
So, with those 3 preps out of the way, I can concentrate more on Alg1, Alg2, Geom and TAKS. TAKS is a course for those students that have low scores on the state math test (I have two students----one passed last year with the minimum score and the other did not pass but did not 'bomb' it).
You are correct, each type of school (large vs. small) has their advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of a small school is that I can get to know the students and give individual instruction. The advantage of a large school is that there are "specialists" (the term that you mentioned) that can deal with low performing students. At a small school, there are no "specialists" and if just ONE student fails any ONE part of the state test, then the school is labled as having a 100%, 67%, 50%, etc (you do the math with one, two, three, etc... students in a grade level) failure rate. Can you imagine a large school having a 67% failure rate? They would be shut down. Well here, if we have just ONE student (and you know that there are just some students that are not capable of understanding advanced algebra concepts), then we have 100% of students failing the math portion of the senior exit test. Yes, there is just one senior this year. Luckily, that student passed! At a larger school, this student may not have passed but given 1000 students and assuming a few others that did not pass, the school's failure rate would still be below 99%.
The kicker is that it IS these few students from the large school that come HERE because they aren't passing in the larger school. SO, the actual percentage of lower achieving students is greater at a small school than a large school.

[CURower]

Often times in Geometry classrooms, teachers will pull out their bag of theorems and write a proof up. However, when a new theorem is created, the path is not clear nor are all necessary theorems available. But when mathematicians write new proofs, they often play around with examples first then form some hypotheses and play those out. Why dont we mimic that in the classroom?

Recently I saw a great idea at a company called VisualizingMathematics.com . They have students use Geometer's Sketchpad to work through examples and form their hypotheses and make them thorough them out with traditional proofs.

Check out their Math Lesson Plans (http://visualizingmathematics.com/MathLabs.html)

[KMS101]

For a new teacher teaching math can be harsh at times to. You should first go over the basic's of math all the way up to the point that they are in that point of time. Teach whatever you know and enjoy what your doing at the same time. Math is a big part, so when teaching math be confident in what your doing. Also have paitents! It is a MUST!

[Unregistered]

The problem that we have today in education is that we are assuming that ALL people are truly interested in math and can 'do' math at high levels. This is simply NOT true. Back 100 years ago, how many children were doing algebra? A VERY small number. Has the human brain evolved in the past 100 years to make an increase in the percentage of humans have the ability to perform higher math concepts?







A hundred years ago the average person did not receive a highschool diploma. In fact the average person did not attend highschool-it was considered college prep. Public highschools were primarily invented to decrease the number of people in the workforce and arbitrarily increase wages.