WTF?
Mr. Ridd is unlikely to find too many Mathematics teachers, whether current or retired, who would disagree with schools emphasising 'basic content and procedural knowledge’.

The reality is that basic content and procedural knowledge is emphasised in current school curricula.

The appalling state of affairs with Mathematics education in Queensland, particularly in comparison to our Asian neighbours, has everything to do with pedagogy and little to do with curriculum content.

Unfortunately, many see the need to turn back the clock 70 years to a time when the teacher worked an example of a skill on the board and then students repeated this skill on their own anywhere between 20 and 50 times or until the teacher believed the student “got it”.

In fact, when I started teaching High School Mathematics most teachers sat down at their desk after they had presented their worked example/s. Students were expected to leave their own desk and walk to the front or back of the room to the teacher’s desk to ask for assistance.

Some students “got it” faster than others and so were placed in “Advanced” classes while other students were placed in “Ordinary” classes.

Research from Australia and around the world confirms that streaming of classes in Mathematics up to Year 10 has a negative effect on student development.

However, so ingrained is streaming in Queensland Mathematics classes that to do otherwise is counter-intuitive to most Maths teachers and most parents.

Also counter-intuitive is the concept of using problem-solving pedagogical approaches to teach Mathematics.

This approach produces exceptional results in Singapore, Japan and other Asian countries.

Bizarrely, we stick to methods that suited some poorly-trained Maths teachers at the end of World War 2 and then repeated from that time on as the most effective way that Maths should be taught.

I wonder if it is useful to think of how many teachers are'qualified' for the subjects they are required to teach. Yes they are qualified as a teacher as that is all that is nedded for teacher registration. Schools decide what subjects and levels they teach. The point already raised about poor teacher pedagogy I think is strongly linked to this. There are a number of factors here then if we accept the issue is with the teacher. One, that these unqualified or out of field teachers are often doing the best that they can to stay ahead of the students. Two, is it fair to blame these teachers who find themselves teaching something they did not sign up for? Three, to what extent is there a requirement that they be given support needed, and how much is actually being given, and who will provide the support, and who will pay the additional money required to support them. And five, why are there no policies that explicitly deal with these issues, not in a deficit way but in a way that recognises these teachers need help. It's not surprising that Aussie kids maths achievement is dropping at a time when interest in maths related careers and further study is also in decline.

Yes Linda, we have many teachers struggling because they do not have the ability to do senior math.

One bloke, a biology & junior math teacher was told to teach senior math, including math C. He made no bones about admitting he couldn't do it, let alone teach it, but he was told to "muddle through".

He worked with the kids I took to QUT coaching, to do the best he could for a the other kids. He left after 2 years, & is now a builder.

We had an Indian lady, who despite being unable to actually handle junior math, had a piece of paper to say she could teach senior math. I think she is still doing it, cutesy of the teachers union.

Garbage WTF? There are about 8% of boys & 3% of girls who can actually handle advanced math. They must be streamed for the good of the country, & pushed as far as they can go.

Another 15% can handle enough math for an engineering/architectural or teachers science course, & should also be streamed, & taught.

The rest will never do more than make change, or balance their credit card account, & we should not try to teach them advanced even schoolboy math. They don't need it, & it is of no value to them or the country.

The modern curriculum is the main problem, as it has been structured to suit girls, & the ability of the teachers available, & is the pits.

WTF?

No Hasbeen it is not me that is speaking garbage.

Let us look to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) latest findings.

They are easy enough to find on the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) site that Mr. Ridd refers to in his article.

Singapore and Japan focus on a problem-solving pedagogy while in Australia we tend to use that lazy practice-the-skill approach.

For year 8 Mathematics in 2011:
Students reaching the “Advanced” benchmark:
Singapore 48%
Japan 27%
Australia 9%

Students reaching the “High” or “Advanced” benchmark:
Singapore 78%
Japan 61%
Australia 29%

Students reaching the “Intermediate”, “High” or “Advanced” benchmark:
Singapore 92%
Japan 87 %
Australia 63%

Just as telling is the lowest achievement benchmark described as “Below Low”. Singapore has only 1% in this group, Japan has 3% and Australia has a staggering 11%.

Hasbeen would has us believe that 74% of students “will never do more than make change” and then complain that TAFE students cannot do trade Maths.

Clearly, east Asian countries believe not only that their students can learn Maths but also that their students do need Maths and that it is of value to them and their country. They have done something about it.

It is not the Mathematics we are teaching students but the way we are teaching them that is the problem.

No, Hasbeen, I'm not a teacher. And what I was questioning wasn't your claims about inadequate teacher competence and effort, but rather that the problem stems from a feminist conspiracy.