Date: Feb 16, 1995 2:11 PM
Author: roitman@oberon.math.ukans.edu
Subject: Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II

>Does anyone know of any research dealing with the sequence of Algebra I, 
>Geometry, Algebra II? I received a letter from a teacher in our state
>wondering if there was any research to support 9th students lack of
>matuirty to be successful in geometry. It appears form the letter that
>there school has 8th grade algebra, followed by geometry for 9th grade.
>Her question was would it be better to have the students take Algebra II
>in 9th grade and save geometry for 10th grade?
>
>
>later.....
>
>Linda Coutts e-mail address: lcoutts@bigcat.missouri.edu
>Coordinator Elementary Mathematics
>Columbia Public Schools Voice: (314) 886-2233
>1206 E. Walnut St FAX: (314) 886-2078
>Columbia, MO 65201



This message resonates with a discussion on the geometry forum about
readiness. To summarize quickly for nctm-l folks, Lou Talman suggested
that some sort of neurological readiness might be necessary for certain
things in math, there was a lot of discussion/disagreement/agreement, and
the latest was a message from John Conway whose first paragraph is:

" I'm a bit worried about this "not neurologically ready" business.
The time when someone is neurologically ready to learn something
is just whatever time works! If a teacher refrains from exploring
some ideas because the teacher has read that students of such-and-such
an age aren't neurologically ready for them, there's a very real risk
of loss."

So Linda raises a question of interest to both lists. I've asked Annie
Fetter, the person who runs the geometry forum lists and, now, nctm-l, to
tell us how to access the geometry discussion digest.

I have another question -- what is this geometry that kids may/may not be
ready for? And what is this algebra ditto?

Welcome back everyone!


====================================
Judy Roitman, Mathematics Department
Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66049
roitman@math.ukans.edu
=====================================