One initial difference in my classroom experiences at Broad Ripple, compared to my previous classroom experiences in the New York City public school system, emerged between January and June 1963, when I was enrolled in Mr. Hougham's Geometry class.
In New York City, my Mathematics teachers in elementary school and junior high school were very good at explaining how to solve the mathematics problems that I was required to answer correctly on homework assignments, quizzes and various kinds of tests. So, as long as I continued to spend time doing the homework assignments they gave their classes to do each day, I always was able to obtain final grades in Mathematics on my report cards of "S.O."/Excellent/Outstanding" in elementary school and "90 or 95" in junior high school. And on the standardized I.Q. multiple choice "idiot tests" or Iowa multiple choice "idiot tests" we were given in elementary school and junior high school, I had pretty much always scored in the highest percentile or nearly aced the mathematics part of the tests.
I also was able to obtain final grades of either a "90 or 95" when I then took first-year Algebra, because my father , who had only graduated from an evening high school in New York City in the 1920's, still remembered enough of first-year Algebra to be able to help me determine the correct answers for an Algebra homework assignment problems that might still be giving me some difficulty.
During my first term of taking Geometry in an "honor" class at Bayside High School with a very skilled Geometry teacher who seemed to be in her late 40's, named Mrs. Rogoff, taught, I continued to always get "90," "95," or "100" on any Geomety tests; and I found it easy to learn the required Geometry academic work. A different Geometry textbook, however, than the textbook used in Bayside High School's eometry classes was used in Broad Ripple's Geometry classes. In addition, Mr. Hougham didn't seem to me to be able to explain as clearly or teach Geometry as skillfully each day's Geometry lesson as the Bayside teacher, Mrs. Rogoff, had been able to do.
Hence, the combination of having to adjust suddenly to a different Geometry textbook (that didn't primarily emphasize Euclidian geometry, as did the textbook that Bayside High School used) that introduced geometry topics in a different order and having a Geometry teacher who seemed less skillful than the one I had had at Bayside, seemed to suddenly turn me into a "C" student in mathematics for the rest of my high school sophomore year.
Yet the next year, taking Intermediate Algebra during my junior year at Broad Ripple with a mathematics teacher who seemed more skillful at teaching than Mr. Hougham had been, I once again usually was scoring "90" or "95" percent on the tests and was, once again, considered an "A" student in Mathematics. Which seemed to prove that there was some relationship between how well a student like me scored on mathematics course tests and how skillful his or her mathematics teacher was in explaining the mathematics topics a student like me was to be tested on.
By the end of my senior year in high school, of course, I felt that after public school students learn counting and calculating basic mathematics, it didn't make much sense for U.S. educational system to require students to take so many mathematics courses in high school, whether these courses are taught in the traditional way or taught in accordance with some kind of "new math" teaching concepts, in order to obtain academic high school diplomas. And by the end of my senior year in high school, I also felt, of course, that acquiring knowledge of a subject that interests you for its own sake was a more valid thing to get into than studying a subject that doesn't interest you; in order to just score high enough tests so that the teacher gives you an "A" or a "90" or "95" grade on your report card at the end of the school term.
