Are the fundamentals important?

I'm a retired teacher. I taught 9th grade algebra, social studies and sometimes a science class. I was very much in favor of fundamentals.

I insisted that students master addition, subtraction, multiplication and division ON PAPER, not just with a calculator. I wanted them to know their multiplication-tables, or at least most of them. Also, know how to read a ruler and balance a checkbook. Figure interest rates. So we would practice those fundamental skills. I had contests in math class over the times-tables. Then we would move on to actual algebra. I did this because the students I was getting from India were great at math, and great thinkers in general, and all had mastered the fundamentals. I now believe it actually teaches a person to be a better thinker in general.

In today's schools, very little grammar is taught. I graded essays for grammar as well as content. Sometimes a student's paper had a lot of corrections on it. I was willing to work with them, but grammar is important. Every unit had vocabulary and spelling words.

Education is moving to group work, where the teacher walks around "facilitating". The students "self discover" and work at their own pace. Very little, if any, direct instruction. I think group work has it's place, but not until the basics of the unit were mastered, usually with direct instruction, so the student had at least a fundamental knowledge of the topic. Then group work to enrich the unit.

Should we return to fundamentals?

Waddy said:

I'm a retired teacher. I taught 9th grade algebra, social studies and sometimes a science class. I was very much in favor of fundamentals.

I insisted that students master addition, subtraction, multiplication and division ON PAPER, not just with a calculator. I wanted them to know their multiplication-tables, or at least most of them. Also, know how to read a ruler and balance a checkbook. Figure interest rates. So we would practice those fundamental skills. I had contests in math class over the times-tables. Then we would move on to actual algebra. I did this because the students I was getting from India were great at math, and great thinkers in general, and all had mastered the fundamentals. I now believe it actually teaches a person to be a better thinker in general.

In today's schools, very little grammar is taught. I graded essays for grammar as well as content. Sometimes a student's paper had a lot of corrections on it. I was willing to work with them, but grammar is important. Every unit had vocabulary and spelling words.

Education is moving to group work, where the teacher walks around "facilitating". The students "self discover" and work at their own pace. Very little, if any, direct instruction. I think group work has it's place, but not until the basics of the unit were mastered, usually with direct instruction, so the student had at least a fundamental knowledge of the topic. Then group work to enrich the unit.

Should we return to fundamentals?

Click to expand...

If we want to compete in the world economy, yes, if we are willing to fail, then no. Priorities....

Waddy said:

I'm a retired teacher. I taught 9th grade algebra, social studies and sometimes a science class. I was very much in favor of fundamentals.

I insisted that students master addition, subtraction, multiplication and division ON PAPER, not just with a calculator. I wanted them to know their multiplication-tables, or at least most of them. Also, know how to read a ruler and balance a checkbook. Figure interest rates. So we would practice those fundamental skills. I had contests in math class over the times-tables. Then we would move on to actual algebra. I did this because the students I was getting from India were great at math, and great thinkers in general, and all had mastered the fundamentals. I now believe it actually teaches a person to be a better thinker in general.

In today's schools, very little grammar is taught. I graded essays for grammar as well as content. Sometimes a student's paper had a lot of corrections on it. I was willing to work with them, but grammar is important. Every unit had vocabulary and spelling words.

Education is moving to group work, where the teacher walks around "facilitating". The students "self discover" and work at their own pace. Very little, if any, direct instruction. I think group work has it's place, but not until the basics of the unit were mastered, usually with direct instruction, so the student had at least a fundamental knowledge of the topic. Then group work to enrich the unit.

Should we return to fundamentals?

Click to expand...

Would you consider coming out of retirement and teaching in our schools?

I'll bet not. So many of our childrens' teachers are leaving in droves, fed up with the paperwork, the parents (the disengaged and those of the helicopter variety) and the general lack of support from their administration and the community-at-large. It's truly sad and my heart aches for the next generation. Had I known then what I know now, I would have given home-schooling a shot as we can't/couldn't afford private school.

But you are so correct. The Fundamentals are Essential (kinda why they're called 'fundamentals' LOL) and are the same regardless of your personal, political or religious leanings. Math is math and grammar is grammar. Our kids hate all the group work; they've already figured out it's the same few doing all the work.

Still, I can't really complain about our local system. It's better than "average," but then again, that's not necessarily saying much. If folks complained about the amount we spend per student ($10K here in VA) and the outcomes...and compare it to the rest of the 1st World Countries...like they seem to want to with health care...then maybe I'd give some credence to that discussion.

As it is, I'd take just half that sum ($5K) in a voucher...and find another alternative.

So, just like I might say to a veteran member of the US Armed Forces, I sincerely thank you for your service to your community. Teaching should be considered a much more honorable profession than it is here in the US.

Waddy said:

I'm a retired teacher. I taught 9th grade algebra, social studies and sometimes a science class. I was very much in favor of fundamentals.

I insisted that students master addition, subtraction, multiplication and division ON PAPER, not just with a calculator. I wanted them to know their multiplication-tables, or at least most of them. Also, know how to read a ruler and balance a checkbook. Figure interest rates. So we would practice those fundamental skills. I had contests in math class over the times-tables. Then we would move on to actual algebra. I did this because the students I was getting from India were great at math, and great thinkers in general, and all had mastered the fundamentals. I now believe it actually teaches a person to be a better thinker in general.

In today's schools, very little grammar is taught. I graded essays for grammar as well as content. Sometimes a student's paper had a lot of corrections on it. I was willing to work with them, but grammar is important. Every unit had vocabulary and spelling words.

Education is moving to group work, where the teacher walks around "facilitating". The students "self discover" and work at their own pace. Very little, if any, direct instruction. I think group work has it's place, but not until the basics of the unit were mastered, usually with direct instruction, so the student had at least a fundamental knowledge of the topic. Then group work to enrich the unit.

Should we return to fundamentals?

Click to expand...

Yes, definitely, as long as we don't go too far and eliminate self-discovery. Higher-level thinking necessitates knowing the fundamentals by heart.

I strongly agree with your idea of making students do calculations by hand as long as possible. Students need to know the underlying mechanism of the mathematics, and a calculator will not do that.

Social studies is all about the fundamentals. That's the problem. Even at the secondary level, it's far too bogged down in learning terminology and dates to do much good for anyone. As a result it barely resembles the real social sciences or humanities and is constantly in danger of feeling irrelevant to teachers, regular students, at-risk students, and those who have not yet been asked to pursue gifted & talented programs. If you have a curious teacher, that has a chance to change. However, at the base level, this is what your students will typically learn day in and day out for many years until they graduate.

Waddy said:

I'm a retired teacher. I taught 9th grade algebra, social studies and sometimes a science class. I was very much in favor of fundamentals.

I insisted that students master addition, subtraction, multiplication and division ON PAPER, not just with a calculator. I wanted them to know their multiplication-tables, or at least most of them. Also, know how to read a ruler and balance a checkbook. Figure interest rates. So we would practice those fundamental skills. I had contests in math class over the times-tables. Then we would move on to actual algebra. I did this because the students I was getting from India were great at math, and great thinkers in general, and all had mastered the fundamentals. I now believe it actually teaches a person to be a better thinker in general.

In today's schools, very little grammar is taught. I graded essays for grammar as well as content. Sometimes a student's paper had a lot of corrections on it. I was willing to work with them, but grammar is important. Every unit had vocabulary and spelling words.

Education is moving to group work, where the teacher walks around "facilitating". The students "self discover" and work at their own pace. Very little, if any, direct instruction. I think group work has it's place, but not until the basics of the unit were mastered, usually with direct instruction, so the student had at least a fundamental knowledge of the topic. Then group work to enrich the unit.

Should we return to fundamentals?

Click to expand...

Yes, I was lucky to have teachers from grade school through high school who taught fundamentals hand in hand with critical thinking. In the 80's and 90' s, the controversies would be what books some parents would try ban from libraries and the curriculum....yet those same people at that time didn't bat an eye when students studied other religions and get bent out of shape if their kid was asked to wear a scarf or be respectful in some manner when on a school trip to a mosque or something.

Science was science...not pseudo-science like intelligent design. We learned the scientific method. Most importantly, we were taught to research properly; facts would uphold or disprove your position or theory. In fact, it was drummed into our heads that each paragraph HAD to have at LEAST three, verifiable facts. Grammar; my sixth grade teacher would automatically fail any paper with 5 or more comma errors in it.

So, yeah, as long as critical thinking is involved, fundamentals should be in play. And not to sound like some old guy (really, I'm Gen-X, not that old yet), but there is something to be said to do mathematics up to Algebra I without a calculator. It's easier to learn from your mistakes that way.

Phys251 said:

Yes, definitely, as long as we don't go too far and eliminate self-discovery. Higher-level thinking necessitates knowing the fundamentals by heart.

I strongly agree with your idea of making students do calculations by hand as long as possible. Students need to know the underlying mechanism of the mathematics, and a calculator will not do that.

Click to expand...

This reminds me how my mom is solving math problems (she likes to read science magazines and solve those "hard" problems, you find them from last pages). What she is doing is calculating by hand, just paper and pencil (8 years math in university, that's her background). When I was kid and asked "what's that?" mom told "it's a matrix", and when asking help for math problems she told "just start writing and solution is always coming up, it's matter of time, you know". I remember one engineer student (we lived in same area long time ago) and this guy sit down just doing math for 6 hours. He did that many days before math exams and when "the great math exam" day was at hand, he used only 30 min to solve all math problems (time limit was 1 hour). He was always fastest and still getting good grades.

People in education sector should think different ways to teach and - like in other hand - keep those tested and reliable ways in class room (like those fundamentals). Not sure if that's the case, but some people don't really know why they are learning about history, math or other languages. Pointing out importance of those subjects is "next level skill" and some teachers don't have it. If you can't motivate people in your class room whole learning process is lost (for most of students).

Fiddytree said:

Social studies is all about the fundamentals. That's the problem. Even at the secondary level, it's far too bogged down in learning terminology and dates to do much good for anyone. As a result it barely resembles the real social sciences or humanities and is constantly in danger of feeling irrelevant to teachers, regular students, at-risk students, and those who have not yet been asked to pursue gifted & talented programs. If you have a curious teacher, that has a chance to change. However, at the base level, this is what your students will typically learn day in and day out for many years until they graduate.

Click to expand...

In my view the "fundamentals" of Social Studies is developing an understanding various viewpoints. Here is an example of how I taught Social Studies. I lectured/discussed the basic facts of the American Revolution; the who, what, when, where. Then I divided the class into two groups; one group was to research the British viewpoint and the other group was to research the American viewpoint. Each student had a specific assignment, otherwise one or two kids do all the work. Then we had a class debate, with each side presenting their viewpoint at the podium and explaining why they felt that way.

I did the same format with the Japanese and Americans; Why did the Japanese feel they had to go to war with America?

I enjoyed it all and so did the kids. Teaching fundamentals before critical thinking is just common sense. It ain't rocket science. Although that's how I would teach rocket science.

Like you I too worked in education (high school science). The problem that I saw with education at the high school level was a logically defined role and/or purpose of education. Much of the fundamentals are (or should be) taught in middle school. The thing is that not every student even under good conditions can grasp or retain them in the same way. For me though I would always find my self asking this question: How important and practical is everything that we are doing in Higher Education (high school, college)? My assessment of the education profession's philosophy was that the goal is to churn out legions of "well-rounded" scholars. Hence the reason for forcing people to take multiple different subjects whether the student had an interest in the subject or not. Because of this philosophy I always felt that my job as a science teacher was not about teaching but rather was classroom management, discipline and preventing cheating. I will admit to a bias because my experience by and large was with lower level non-science type students. An AP science teacher will likely have some different perspectives.

The hypocrisy in particularly from the left regarding education is out of one side of their mouth the over emphasis on how every American student needs to go to college yet out of the other side of their mouth how we need extensive immigration of people who have little to no education and don't even speak the language. The bottom line with education in is that we sorely need reform and a clearly defined role in particularly at the higher levels. Here is a simple question, does every American student really need four years of high school and college? Why not just 2 or 3 years of each? These are the types of questions that every American needs to start asking and talking to their representatives about.

Waddy said:

I'm a retired teacher. I taught 9th grade algebra, social studies and sometimes a science class. I was very much in favor of fundamentals.

I insisted that students master addition, subtraction, multiplication and division ON PAPER, not just with a calculator. I wanted them to know their multiplication-tables, or at least most of them. Also, know how to read a ruler and balance a checkbook. Figure interest rates. So we would practice those fundamental skills. I had contests in math class over the times-tables. Then we would move on to actual algebra. I did this because the students I was getting from India were great at math, and great thinkers in general, and all had mastered the fundamentals. I now believe it actually teaches a person to be a better thinker in general.

In today's schools, very little grammar is taught. I graded essays for grammar as well as content. Sometimes a student's paper had a lot of corrections on it. I was willing to work with them, but grammar is important. Every unit had vocabulary and spelling words.

Education is moving to group work, where the teacher walks around "facilitating". The students "self discover" and work at their own pace. Very little, if any, direct instruction. I think group work has it's place, but not until the basics of the unit were mastered, usually with direct instruction, so the student had at least a fundamental knowledge of the topic. Then group work to enrich the unit.

Should we return to fundamentals?

Click to expand...

Waddy:

Return to the fundamentals? Perhaps not exclusively. But certainly re-emphasise these fundamentals and, to put it bluntly, force students to master basic reading, writing, historical, geographical, scientific and mathematical concepts and skills. By way of example, how can a high school student be expected to follow how to do synthetic division of algebraic expressions if his/her grade school teachers never bothered to teach the elementary skills of long division without the use of a calculator? They can't. There are many other examples such as ruler, compass and protractor work in maths, weighing and measuring in science, logical reasoning in social sciences and both writing and speaking in language arts. You can't build a good education unless you lay down strong and firm foundations.

The problem is that the corpus of concepts and skills has mushroomed over the last five decades and so many new fundamentals have been added to the critical list of necessary concepts/skills that there is very little time to cover it in class.

I agree, teach the basic vocabulary, then the basic concepts, then the fundamental skills needed to use the concepts and only then cater to each student's peculiar interests through independent learning or group work.

So yes to the fundamentals but also a realisation that the fundamentals have grown in number and changed in form in the modern world.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Cynical said:

Like you I too worked in education (high school science). The problem that I saw with education at the high school level was a logically defined role and/or purpose of education. Much of the fundamentals are (or should be) taught in middle school. The thing is that not every student even under good conditions can grasp or retain them in the same way. For me though I would always find my self asking this question: How important and practical is everything that we are doing in Higher Education (high school, college)? My assessment of the education profession's philosophy was that the goal is to churn out legions of "well-rounded" scholars. Hence the reason for forcing people to take multiple different subjects whether the student had an interest in the subject or not. Because of this philosophy I always felt that my job as a science teacher was not about teaching but rather was classroom management, discipline and preventing cheating. I will admit to a bias because my experience by and large was with lower level non-science type students. An AP science teacher will likely have some different perspectives.

The hypocrisy in particularly from the left regarding education is out of one side of their mouth the over emphasis on how every American student needs to go to college yet out of the other side of their mouth how we need extensive immigration of people who have little to no education and don't even speak the language. The bottom line with education in is that we sorely need reform and a clearly defined role in particularly at the higher levels. Here is a simple question, does every American student really need four years of high school and college? Why not just 2 or 3 years of each? These are the types of questions that every American needs to start asking and talking to their representatives about.

Click to expand...

Cynical:

It has been my experience that immigrant students have a greater desire to learn and excel at their studies than their locally raised peers en masse. Individuals always vary. I agree that reforms are systemic and comprehensive educational reforms are needed in both teacher training and in student education. I also believe very strongly that a big part of that should be a spiral curriculum which assures that all students are well grounded in the fundamentals before they progress to the next level of their education. This is made much easier when good teachers fore the imaginations and curiosity of students and inculcate into them a hunger and desire for learning. Done right, lessons and practice of the most rote of skills can still be interesting for all but the most jaded or disengaged student.

Advancement to the next level brings up the dirty word which no one in education wants to seriously discuss. That word is "failure" or the phrase "being held back". Until our education system recognises our own failures and comes to terms with the idea that some students should be failed until they achieve certain levels of expertise in fundamental concepts, skills and performance, then both the failures of our schools and the ill-preparation of our students will continue. We have no difficulty seeing that some students can learn at an accelerated rate but deny that some students will need more time and more support to learn their basics thoroughly. Failure is as important to learning as is success outside of the scholastic bubble but we as teachers seem to be blind to that reality and seek to protect students from our own systemic weaknesses or their educational shortfalls rather than dealing with educational setbacks constructively and without social stigma. The ability to fail teachers and to fail/hold back students may be just as important to proper education as rewarding each group's successes, but we turn away from this for philosophical or psychological reasons and deny what is happening and the remedies which are needed to correct it. But that's a different topic and a tangent from the OP's theme.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Cynical said:

Like you I too worked in education (high school science). The problem that I saw with education at the high school level was a logically defined role and/or purpose of education. Much of the fundamentals are (or should be) taught in middle school. The thing is that not every student even under good conditions can grasp or retain them in the same way. For me though I would always find my self asking this question: How important and practical is everything that we are doing in Higher Education (high school, college)? My assessment of the education profession's philosophy was that the goal is to churn out legions of "well-rounded" scholars. Hence the reason for forcing people to take multiple different subjects whether the student had an interest in the subject or not. Because of this philosophy I always felt that my job as a science teacher was not about teaching but rather was classroom management, discipline and preventing cheating. I will admit to a bias because my experience by and large was with lower level non-science type students. An AP science teacher will likely have some different perspectives.

The hypocrisy in particularly from the left regarding education is out of one side of their mouth the over emphasis on how every American student needs to go to college yet out of the other side of their mouth how we need extensive immigration of people who have little to no education and don't even speak the language. The bottom line with education in is that we sorely need reform and a clearly defined role in particularly at the higher levels. Here is a simple question, does every American student really need four years of high school and college? Why not just 2 or 3 years of each? These are the types of questions that every American needs to start asking and talking to their representatives about.

Click to expand...

Cynical:

It has been my experience that immigrant students have a greater desire to learn and excel at their studies than their locally raised peers en masse. Individuals always vary. I agree that reforms are systemic and comprehensive educational reforms are needed in both teacher training and in student education. I also believe very strongly that a big part of that should be a spiral curriculum which assures that all students are well grounded in the fundamentals before they progress to the next level of their education. This is made much easier when good teachers fore the imaginations and curiosity of students and inculcate into them a hunger and desire for learning. Done right, lessons and practice of the most rote of skills can still be interesting for all but the most jaded or disengaged student.

Advancement to the next level brings up the dirty word which no one in education wants to seriously discuss. That word is "failure" or the phrase "being held back". Until our education system recognises our own failures and comes to terms with the idea that some students should be failed until they achieve certain levels of expertise in fundamental concepts, skills and performance, then both the failures of our schools and the ill-preparation of our students will continue. We have no difficulty seeing that some students can learn at an accelerated rate but deny that some students will need more time and more support to learn their basics thoroughly. Failure is as important to learning as is success outside of the scholastic bubble but we as teachers seem to be blind to that reality and seek to protect students from our own systemic weaknesses or their educational shortfalls rather than dealing with educational setbacks constructively and without social stigma. The ability to fail teachers and to fail/hold back students may be just as important to proper education as rewarding each group's successes, but we turn away from this for philosophical or psychological reasons and deny what is happening and the remedies which are needed to correct it. But that's a different topic and a tangent from the OP's theme.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

It has been my experience that immigrant students have a greater desire to learn and excel at their studies than their locally raised peers en masse. Individuals always vary.

Click to expand...

It seems anecdotally true as well at higher levels of education. I have been assisting professors lecture and tackle problems with students at the master's level for a while and I had a discussion with one of them about the catastrophic results in the advanced microeconomics course. For some background, it is typical in Canada for students to get a bachelor's degree specifically in economics before attending a master's program. Most of our Canadian students therefore also studied in Canada, often in the same university. He told me that over the years, he observed that the students who tend to do the worst in his class were Canadians. Immigrants usually did better on average. There might be something cultural at play here, maybe something related to work ethic in particular because it feels like some of it persist long after middle school and high school.

Evilroddy said:

Advancement to the next level brings up the dirty word which no one in education wants to seriously discuss. That word is "failure" or the phrase "being held back".

Click to expand...

It's a problem almost everywhere. Nobody wants to fail students and hold them back, even when they are incapable of demonstrating a minimal capacity to use what they have been taught. Not only is it a disservice to the students themselves because they move on to tackle more complicated tasks lacking the required skills, it probably also hinders the learning experience for everyone else. I know you have been teaching for a long time, so I am sure you have experienced this yourself. People show up in a class where you should be able to take some skills for granted, but you know you cannot, so you review some things you should not have to review. Then, you move forward thinking you did enough only to learn a handful of people are still lost... and you have not started talking about what you're supposed to do yet.

Circling back to what the OP was saying, learning the fundamentals is important. If you cannot do simple arithmetic in your head, good luck following an argument involving algebra -- and algebra is useful almost everywhere. For Joe Average, the main interest probably involves accounting and managing their personal finance. Things such as figuring out if you can afford buying something that you will have to finance through loans or mortgages, comparing investment opportunities, discussing how to plan for retirement, etc. involve quite a bit of algebra. You can ask someone else to run the numbers for you, but who tells you they're not screwing you over? Some people might gain from lying to you and others might not be good enough to solve the problem correctly. Moreover, some of these problems really are complicated. Investment decisions involve knowledge about tax codes, transaction costs, management costs and measurement of risks, among others. Not everyone needs to be an expert, but if you cannot do a back-of-the-enveloppe calculation, you're at the mercy of what others tell you.

Basic skills in mathematics and in at least the dominant language where you live is a pre-requisite to learn about everything else.