Palo Alto school board approves two elementary math curricula for pilot

I agree with Dauber and Godfrey on this one. Why tell teachers they can't pilot a curriculum they have tested and believe will work for students? I trust our teachers to make educational decisions more than amateurs who seem to be trusting their guts instead.

Well done, Melissa Baten Caswell, Camille Townsend and Heidi Emberling!
Investigations was a disaster last time it was adopted.

As usual, Melissa Baten Caswell, Camille Townsend and Heidi Emberling are on the wrong side.

Again.

[Portion removed.]

Palo Alto schools ain't what they used to be-- that's a fact.

I suspect part of the dropping enrollment a are due to people taking their kids OUT of PAUSD.

@Fairmeadow mom - They shouldn't pilot Investigations because even though some teacher like it, it is not common core aligned, not rigorous, and gets embarrassingly bad reviews from edreports. We should probably weed out the teachers that were supporting it.

Well,
Grades do not really count until 8th grade so fool around a little bit. Puzzles, games and projects will make good math kids, not a certain publisher. Join a math circle or find one online- AOPS has live ones that are pretty fun for kids that love math and like to fool around with it without being boxed up in a certain text or graded rubric. Also playing cards or building cardboard houses or giving kids interest on their allowance can be math oriented fooling around.

Seriously, why do we have to choose a curriculum? The teachers must see that the kids have different learning styles. Why aren't we pursuing programs that allow choice and individualized assessment tools?

I thought the teacher was reasonably good but EDM was a terrible fit, then middle school made no allowances for the mix of kids who never got tutored to rise above EDM and those who did. Couple that with large classes of whatever is the opposite of mastery based instruction and it added up to turning a love of math into whatever is the opposite.

We left the district, are in a situation where we choose the best fit curriculum, it's mastery based, and we're seeing love of math re-emerge. Not just love of math, but considerably accelerated, neater beyond belief, suddenly increased output, etc.

Why not give our teachers the chance to be mentors to every child by giving them a palate of resources that allow them to individualize instruction? Choosing one math textbook seems destined never to be right for a substantial portion of kids, since kids inevitably have different learning styles and needs.

@Because we can - I don't know if it is intentional or not, but you are making the case for bringing back tracking. Start dividing the kids by skill and learning style as early as possible, and you'll get the best results. PAUSD is already doing it in an extremely clumsy way by creating teh choice schools at Ohlone and Hoover. Just admit it and track inside each school as well.

@NoMoPa,
Actually, not. I'm making a case for individualized mastery-based instruction. When the kids are doing their own thing, and learning optimally in the curriculum best suited for their learning style, with assessment tools only the teacher and parents and child can see, a lot of good things can happen and a lot of bad things go away. We could never achieve that by picking a single old-school textbook and curriculum for everyone. Really, why in the heart of innovation town do we not use even the well-tried accredited innovations?

Trust teachers? Why start that again?