Posted on

>Super Demonstrates Math Rigor

>

12 thoughts on “>Super Demonstrates Math Rigor”

  1. Anonymous

    >I am left speechless…

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    >I cannot imagine male children, sitting comfortably around a table, engaging in any part of this discussion. They would sit because they are forced to sit. They need to move and interact. They need to wiggle. Girls, on the other hand would take to this approach like ducks to water. This is a tea party. Who benefits most by this linguistic approach? It would have to be the girls. Boys do not process language, at the early ages, or, at any age, like girls. What aspect of this teaching method appeals to boys’ needs? Someone needs to explain how this type of approach to learning includes what is now hard scientific evidence that boys learn differently than girls. This approach is so lopsided to female learning strengths that it insures that our boys will be left behind – far , far behind ! Just like the male BOE members, who were either mute or lost during the demonstration, so will our boys be.

    Reply
  3. A resident and a teacher

    >Boys (and girls who are tactile and visual) need more math manipulatives and you are right- less “talk.”

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    >”Boys (and girls who are tactile and visual) need more math manipulatives and you are right- less “talk.”

    Boys need “direct instruction” and then they need to practice. They like accuracy also.

    This method puts so much language into Math, it’s puts boys and analytical thinking girls at a disadvantage.

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    >JUST SAD… and SPEECHLES. Math is gone from some schools in Ridgewood. I guess I need to move to a dif. elemenary. Sounds like Somerville will be my choice(wonderful principal and staff that really suplement our math program) LOVE RIDGEWOOD

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    >We all can’t fit in Somerville.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    >For the record — Somerville has closed enrollment for kindergarten (yes, really). No more room for additional students. All grades are tight. Sorry!

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    >4:40 just today put an offer. SOMERVILLE there I go….

    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    >6:17 – Welcome to the neighborhood!!

    Reply
  10. Anonymous

    >I happen to be a female who (I guess) prefers to learn like a male. I started to listen to the talk and within 2 minutes all I could hear was the voice of “Charlie Brown adults” wah, wah, wah.

    Reply
  11. Anonymous

    >Ask a boy to describe an elevator and ask a girl to describe an elevator and they give you different answers.

    The boy would focus on a box that hangs by cables and goes up and down…

    The girl tends to focus on a small room with sliding doors and buttons for selected floors. Oh, they will add carpeting and lights if pressed for more detail.

    Try it on your children.

    Reply
  12. Anonymous

    >10:36

    That’s cute, but I’m not sure of your point.

    Girls and boys who are geared toward math can learn from the same curriculum.

    Maybe this is about Mathematical aptitude and the reality is not everyone has that.

    Perhaps if you give both the boys and girls a traditional math education, more boys might excel than girls, but there will be girls who also get it.

    It could also be that many girls were not expected to excel at school before the sixties because they would just get married any way. Maybe we didn’t have to change the curriculum, just the 50s mindset of the parents, which has changed.

    This curriculum being “girl friendly” is insulting for all the women who were educated twenty years ago who now work in Engineering or Finance.

    There is irony in the fact that Ms. Botsford must have been educated using those methods because of her age.

    This “new new math” didn’t exist before 1989, so a traditional math education served her well.

    Woman can get traditional math and she is proof of that.

    Reply
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *