I read with interest the letter by Terry Espejo titled "Back to the Basic of Learning."
His letter addresses the move in this district to reform the delivery of Math 8 in area high schools with the goal of improving student achievement.
Is it possible that improving student achievement in math is more than changing a model?
More time at something does not always equate to improvement. Perhaps we also need to examine quality versus quantity.
Are instructional strategies and assessment methods sound, equitable, fair, proven, and most importantly motivating for learners?
Is achievement being compromised by blurring a student's performance (work habits) and academic achievement (what they know)?
If the answer is yes, then it won't matter what model is delivered. If the delivery is flawed in any way, then changes in our student's math achievement will be non-existent.
Educational researchers including Rick Stiggins and Ken O'Connor suggest how curriculum is taught and how learning is assessed will have more impact on student achievement than anything else.
If what they say is true, then perhaps it's not the model that needs changing after all.
Laurie Bryce
Prince George
