# Conservatives Battle Liberals In The Classroom



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2009)

The political clashes that take place on the USMB actually have import if they inform views, and make us better able to fight the battles that should be fought in the real world.
The following article should be read by those of us who have school age children, are interested in education, and especially mathematics education.

The author, Sandra Stotsky, a nationally-known advocate of standards-based reform and strong academic standards and assessments for students and teachers, indicts progressive education as the culprit in the depredation of our childrens education, and indicates the reforms that would be cures.
And she notes the difficulty in changing education due to the political milieu today.
Who Needs Mathematicians for Math, Anyway?
The ed schools' pedagogy adds up to trouble.
13 November 2009
Who Needs Mathematicians for Math, Anyway? by Sandra Stotsky, City Journal 13 November 2009

A summary of the article:

1. In 1989, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the chief professional organization for mathematics educators and education faculty, issued Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. The document presented standards for grades K12, including algebra. The underlying goals of the standardsnever made clear to the general publicwere social, not academic. Some of the reports authors, for example, sought to make mathematics accessible to low-achieving students, yet meant by this not, say, recruiting more talented undergraduates into teaching but instead the employment of trendy, though empirically unsupported, pedagogical and organizational methods that essentially dumb down math content. Math educators proclaimed a brand-new objectiveconveniently indefinable and immeasurablecalled deep conceptual understanding.

2. The educational trends that led to the NCTMs approach to math have a long pedigree. During the 1970s and 1980s, educators in reading, English, and history argued that the traditional curriculum needed to be more engaging and relevant to an increasingly alienated and unmotivatedor so it was claimedstudent body. Some influential educators sought to dismiss the traditional curriculum altogether, viewing it as a white, Christian, heterosexual-male product that unjustly valorized rational, abstract, and categorical thinking over the associative, experience-based, and emotion-laden thinking supposedly more congenial to females and certain minorities.

3. Two theories lie behind the educators new approach to math teaching: cultural-historical activity theory and constructivism. According to cultural-historical activity theory, schooling as it exists today reinforces an illegitimate social order. The primary role of math teachers, constructivists say in turn, shouldnt be to explain or otherwise try to transfer their mathematical knowledge to students; that would be ineffective. Instead, they must help the students construct their own understanding of mathematics and find their own math solutions.

4. Teacher-directed learning goes out the window, despite its demonstrated benefits for students with learning problems; instead, schools should embrace student-centered math classrooms. The progressive educators, by contrast, support integrated approaches to teaching maththat is, teaching topics from all areas of mathematics every year, regardless of logical sequence and student mastery of each stepand they downplay basic arithmetic skills and practice, encouraging kids to use calculators from kindergarten on. The educators also neglect the teaching of standard algorithms (mathematical procedures commonly taught everywhere, with only minor variations, because of their general applicability), insisting instead on the value of student-developed algorithmsthis despite research by cognitive psychologists strongly supporting a curriculum that simultaneously develops conceptual understanding, computational fluency with standard algorithms, and problem-solving skills as the best way to prepare students for algebra.

5. [T]he president issued an executive order in 2006 forming the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The panel, composed of mathematicians, cognitive psychologists, mathematics educators, and education researchers, would examine how best to prepare students for Algebra 1, the gateway course to higher mathematicsThe panel found little if any credible evidence supporting the teaching philosophy and practices that math educators have promoted in their ed-school courses and embedded in textbooks for almost two decades. Despite the proven effectiveness of these strategies [recommended by the Paned], many math educators view most of them with disdainmost likely because they entail more traditional, structured teaching.

6.  Baseless pedagogical theories mean that the educators long-term captive audienceK12 teachers, most drawn from the middle academic tier of our high school population and the bottom third of our undergraduate populationwill know even less about authentic mathematics than they do now. Alas, so will their students.


----------



## Polk (Nov 14, 2009)

I don't see this as a liberal/conservative issue, but good article.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

Polk said:


> I don't see this as a liberal/conservative issue, but good article.



My objection to the direction that public education, known as 'progressive' since Dewey, is that protagonists have replaced academic content, as you see in the article, with the quasi-Marxist 'social justice.'

If you liked the article, I recommend this one to you:

1.	At a recent meeting of the New York Teaching Fellows program (Teach for America: provides an alternate route to state certification for about 1,700 new teachers annually) , Sol Stern found the one book that the fellows had to read in full was Pedagogy of the Oppressed, by the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire.
This book has achieved near-iconic status in Americas teacher-training programs. In 2003, David Steiner and Susan Rozen published a study examining the curricula of 16 schools of education14 of them among the top-ranked institutions in the country, according to U.S. News and World Reportand found that Pedagogy of the Oppressed was one of the most frequently assigned texts in their philosophy of education courses.

2.	But rather than dealing with the education of children, Pedagogy of the Oppressed mentions none of the issues that troubled education reformers throughout the twentieth century: testing, standards, curriculum, the role of parents, how to organize schools, what subjects should be taught in various grades, how best to train teachers, the most effective way of teaching disadvantaged students. This ed-school bestseller is, instead, a utopian political tract calling for the overthrow of capitalist hegemony and the creation of classless societies.

3.	Freire never intends pedagogy to refer to any method of classroom instruction based on analysis and research, or to any means of producing higher academic achievement for students.  [H]e relies on* Marxs standard formulation that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat *[and] this dictatorship only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.  In one footnote, however, Freire does mention a society that has actually realized the permanent liberation he seeks: it appears to be *the fundamental aspect of Maos Cultural Revolution.*

4.	The pedagogical point of Freires thesis : *its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as official knowledge that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society.* One of Freires most widely quoted metaphors dismisses teacher-directed instruction as a misguided banking concept, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing and storing the deposits. Freire proposes instead that teachers partner with their coequals, the students, in a dialogic and problem-solving process until the roles of teacher and student merge into teacher-students and student-teachers.
Pedagogy of the Oppressor by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2009

If we cannot reclaim the schools, it is the end of America.


----------



## Annie (Nov 15, 2009)

and from the 'teacher's pov', also City-Journal.

Remember that most grade school teachers are 'education majors' not subject area specialists. Some are better at math than others, most are married to the text books and keys. If the teacher can't adjust, those kids are going to stay in the book, failing. 

How Not to Teach Math by Matthew Clavel



> Matthew Clavel
> How Not to Teach Math
> New Yorks chancellor Kleins plan doesnt compute.
> 7 March 2003
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 15, 2009)

Educated people reject Socialism, hence our sabotaged educational system tries to keep people ignorant.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

Annie said:


> and from the 'teacher's pov', also City-Journal.
> 
> Remember that most grade school teachers are 'education majors' not subject area specialists. Some are better at math than others, most are married to the text books and keys. If the teacher can't adjust, those kids are going to stay in the book, failing.
> 
> ...



I tried to add a rep, but it wouldn't allow...

I'm grateful when attention is paid, (could we call this 'Death of a Curriculum'?) to the sorry state of education.


----------



## chanel (Nov 15, 2009)

Our math dept is not permitted to grade homework and tests and quizzes may not count for more than 40 percent of their grade. Hence, 60 percent of their "achievement" is based on having a face.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

Annie said:


> and from the 'teacher's pov', also City-Journal.
> 
> Remember that most grade school teachers are 'education majors' not subject area specialists. Some are better at math than others, most are married to the text books and keys. If the teacher can't adjust, those kids are going to stay in the book, failing.
> 
> ...



I think that, as data should inform policy, the No Child Left Behind Act is a good start, as it forces the educrats to present students' scores, but although the Act mandates annual testing for all states, it does not provide federal standards for testing practices. Left to their own discretion, states have created a broad array of approaches. Instead of trying to improve student achievement, some states may be watering down their own achievement standards to avoid accountability sanctions.

According to the Fordham Foundation, between 2003 and 2005, 20 states have seen dramatic improvement in the proficiency rates on state exams that determine whether states meet federal guidelines for adequate yearly progress. But children in these same states have not posted similar gains on the federally mandated National Assessment of Educational Progress, leading some experts to declare that NCLB has started a race to the bottom in terms of lower state standards.

Here, from the _New York City Teachers newspaper _is the spin to explain why kids seem to be improving, on state exams, but when exposed to the NAEP, show where they really stand:

Teachers have been telling the UFT that there is too much emphasis on teaching to the state standards as measured by state tests. Now, the results of the national math tests this year support their claims. 

Students in New York State showed no real progress on these tests this year despite big gains on statewide exams.

Flat scores on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in math stood in stark contrast to large gains on the state test, where an unprecedented number of students have met state standards over the last two years.

Education experts and commentators questioned whether schools have become so focused on teaching to the specifics of state tests that they have sacrificed broader and more challenging curriculums. Others wondered if state tests have misled educators about how much students actually know.
National tests show no progress in math - United Federation of Teachers

So, according to the United Federation of Teachers, it is not that the system/curriculum is faulty, not teaching enough, but rather that teachers are doing too good a job at teaching to the [State] test.

I don't see any hope outside of homeschooling.


----------



## Annie (Nov 15, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > and from the 'teacher's pov', also City-Journal.
> ...



Thanks for the attempt. I've been lucky, I teach in a school where we are free to leave texts, as long as we adhere to standards. It's a good approach, but one the public schools really have problems doing, even with highly qualified teachers. Because they don't want one teacher 'teaching more' or 'differently', since all the parents would want the most effective teacher-you know, the one teaching.

I was lucky with my kids and public schools too, as they all went to public high school. Upper income area-why I struggle with paying for townhouse-the parents want 'ability grouping and teachers that teach. Not exactly what state wants, but they do get around it.  Part of the problem with public schools, the parents education and willingness to be involved, has more to do with their success than the texts, teachers, or published curriculum.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

chanel said:


> Our math dept is not permitted to grade homework and tests and quizzes may not count for more than 40 percent of their grade. Hence, 60 percent of their "achievement" is based on having a face.



We can't be the only ones who know and notice these things.

Can it be that the vast majority of parents are less concerned with the education their children get than simply getting them baby-sat?

Academic content is a key reason why we homeschool.

At a recent trip arranged by a homeschool group to a NYC museum, my seven year old raised his hand to comment on the "tesserae used in the mosaic" the group was viewing.

I was so proud of him!


----------



## chanel (Nov 15, 2009)

There are still a few of us "traditionalists" left politicalchic. I am a certified reading instructor. I basically teach 2nd grade phonics to high school kids who are victims of the "whole language movement" Parents need to demand what their kids need, and in many instances they are accomodated. Just use the word "attorney" in your request.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

chanel said:


> There are still a few of us "traditionalists" left politicalchic. I am a certified reading instructor. I basically teach 2nd grade phonics to high school kids who are victims of the "whole language movement" Parents need to demand what their kids need, and in many instances they are accomodated. Just use the word "attorney" in your request.



Spot on: "...a few of us "traditionalists" left..."

The last fifty years has take its tolls. Most Americans are no longer tradidtionalists, sadly.

I don't have stock in 'City Journal,' but this is also from the same:

"The breakup of this 300-year-old consensus on the work ethic began with the cultural protests of the 1960s, which questioned and discarded many traditional American virtues. The roots of this breakup lay in what Daniel Bell described in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism as the rejection of traditional bourgeois qualities by late-nineteenth-century European artists and intellectuals who sought to substitute for religion or morality an aesthetic justification of life. By the 1960s, that modernist tendency had evolved into a credo of self-fulfillment in which nothing is forbidden, all is to be explored, Bell wrote. Out went the Protestant ethics prudence, thrift, temperance, self-discipline, and deferral of gratification. Weakened along with all these virtues that made up the American work ethic was Americans belief in the value of work itself. Along with turning on and tuning in, the sixties protesters also dropped out. As the editor of the 1973 American Work Ethic noted, affluence, hedonism and radicalism were turning many Americans away from work and the pursuit of career advancement"

University education departments began to tell future grammar school teachers that they should replace the traditional teacher-centered curriculum, aimed at producing educated citizens who embraced a common American ethic, with a new, child-centered approach that treats every pupils personal development as different and special. During the 1960s, when intellectuals and college students dismissed traditional American values as oppressive barriers to fulfillment, grammar schools generally jettisoned the traditional curriculum. Education professors eagerly joined New Left professors to promote the idea that any top-down imposition of any curriculum would be a right-wing plot designed to perpetuate the dominant white, male, bourgeois power structure, writes education reformer E. D. Hirsch, Jr., in his forthcoming The Making of Americans: Democracy and Our Schools."

Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic? by Steven Malanga, City Journal Summer 2009

Oops! There goes the good mood I started the day with- and now I almost ended a sentence with a preposition!


----------



## Annie (Nov 15, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > There are still a few of us "traditionalists" left politicalchic. I am a certified reading instructor. I basically teach 2nd grade phonics to high school kids who are victims of the "whole language movement" Parents need to demand what their kids need, and in many instances they are accomodated. Just use the word "attorney" in your request.
> ...



The above is true. This being in spite of all research that demonstrates that direct instruction in well managed classrooms results in highest performance by students. Go figure. I blame it on Dewey.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

Annie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



And yet the 'cognoscenti' genuflect to Dewey and ignore research data.

I'm afraid that those who think that the current administration is an abberation in terms of American history don't realize that it is a continuation of the trend since the 60's.

We are the abberation.

I fear for my children who will have to make their way in the 'body-snatcher' society.


----------



## Annie (Nov 15, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Indeed. I was not politically correct through my last tour of university. I still got my A's, but probably as much for being near age to my profs, and a mean cuss if I was challenged. LOL! My education profs really didn't care for me much, not a problem with the history professors.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

Annie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



I wonder how my kids will fare in 15 years or so as traditionalists, considering the direction most university profs seem to have taken.

I hope that they are as tough as you are.


----------



## Annie (Nov 15, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I think there's something for preparing them, then letting them fly. Never be surprised if they test waters with being more liberal, reality soon enough smacks them upside.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 15, 2009)

chanel said:


> Our math dept is not permitted to grade homework and tests and quizzes may not count for more than 40 percent of their grade. Hence, 60 percent of their "achievement" is based on having a face.



sounds like your school is trying to "get around, no child left behind"?


----------



## Annie (Nov 15, 2009)

Care4all said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Our math dept is not permitted to grade homework and tests and quizzes may not count for more than 40 percent of their grade. Hence, 60 percent of their "achievement" is based on having a face.
> ...



No, it's the norm now in k-4, at least. It's a 'process', which of course remains undefined. While some kids can 'pick up' math naturally, most can't. You wouldn't believe the standard 3rd grade text. Chapter title says: measurements. 

Picture of ruler on page, good start. Then you look at the problems; which range from measurements to reading problems that are substraction; having nothing to do with measurement. Not even about trains traveling in opposite directions. 

There is no rhyme or reason, ie. logical presentation to be found. Not only is the student confused, often the teacher is too. Not to mention an adult trying to help with homework, as the models really don't pertain to the questions. It's all just thrown in.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 15, 2009)

Political Chic...your left wing conspiracy theories and your right wing fear mongering never reach a plateau...

If there has been one significant change from the '60's, it's that the power has rested in the hands of the right... the left boarded Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and has not been heard from since...

The '60's saw us achieve the feat of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth, it spurred a boom in acquired knowledge, technical achievement and education ..

We now live in YOUR America babe...

The only thing America is number one in now is punishment...


----------



## paperview (Nov 15, 2009)

That's a stunning graph.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Political Chic...your left wing conspiracy theories and your right wing fear mongering never reach a plateau...
> 
> If there has been one significant change from the '60's, it's that the power has rested in the hands of the right... the left boarded Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and has not been heard from since...
> 
> ...




Why would you attempt to hijack this thread, which is aimed at highlightling the unspeakable damage that the left and their 'useful idiiots' have done to a once-great education system, rather than beginning your own thread with you bogus graphs and more drivel that has nothing to do with education?

You can respond to the 'why' with one or more of the following:

1. You know nothing about education, and have no interest in it

2. It is an extention of your usual modus operendi, that is hoping against hope that anyone would share a conversation with you?

3. You never miss an opportunity to attack America's greatness?

4. To get a check from the Democrat Party based on the number of left-wing talking points you are able to insert?

5. Just passing time until the bars open up?

6. You're just taking a break from your old hobby, reading the obituary column and crossing the names out of the phone book.

7. Or- and most probably, even you don't have the slightest idea what you post has to do with this thread.

BTW, as for "We now live in YOUR America babe...," even you can't be this much out of reality.
And that would be 'Ms. Babe' to you.

Now, did I help fill part of your empty, mundane, jejune, sterile, monotonous, pitiful life?


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 15, 2009)

paperview said:


> That's a stunning graph.



Just listen to the intrinsic urge to punish from the right from health care to education...

"Less government" has become a code word for punishment...because BIG military, BIG prisons and BIG Wars are never BIG government in their eyes... just helping Americans ...

Laws are like spiders' webs which, if anything small falls into them they ensnare it, but large things break through and escape.
*Solon*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > That's a stunning graph.
> ...



Oh, no.

See, this is what happens when I break one of my own rules!

Whenever Grin posts, I know all he wants is to continue the back and forth. His life is so empty that no matter how he is spanked, he loves any attention.

I see him as the masochist, and myself as the sadist, he says "Hit me, beat me, hurt me..."

And I say......"Nooooooo"

Now, see the mistake I made.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 15, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Political Chic...your left wing conspiracy theories and your right wing fear mongering never reach a plateau...
> ...



Actually I do know something about education...you were absent when it was being taught. 

The problem with our education system is that it teaches children how to pass a test instead of how to solve a problem...it focuses on disconnected knowledge and creates dysfunctional intelligence...

Ironic, in you last hysterical paranoid rant you falsely slandered Dr Emanuel based on disinformation and innuendo...yet Dr Emanuel identified the symptoms of that disconnected knowledge and dysfunctional intelligence in The Perfect Storm of Overutilization.

Medical school education and postgraduate training emphasize
thoroughness. When evaluating a patient, students,
interns, and residents are trained to identify and praised for
and graded on enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests
that would confirm or exclude them. The thought is that the
more thorough the evaluation, the more intelligent the student
or house officer. Trainees who ignore the improbable zebra
diagnoses are not deemed insightful. In medical training,
meticulousness, not effectiveness, is rewarded.

This mentality carries over into practice. Peer recognition
goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians.
The prudent physician is not deemed particularly competent,
but rather inadequate. This culture is further reinforced
by a unique understanding of professional obligations,
specifically, the Hippocratic Oaths admonition to use
my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment
as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless
of cost or effect on others.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



 Another key administration figure is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staffis one of those responsible for inserting into the healthcare bill the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of social justice, and the society as a whole.Communitarianism emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limits of liberal theory and practice. *Its dominant themes are that individual rights need to be balanced with social responsibilities*, and that autonomous selves do not exist in isolation, but are shaped by the values and culture of communities*The critique of one-sided emphasis on rights has been key to defining communitarianism"*Rights talk" thus corrupts our 
CPN - Tools


"Unfortunately, many American bioethicists give the impression that they have never given the philosophy or ethics which underpins their work much thought. One British philosopher has even complained that they are simply too stupid: 

... it is all too evident that very many, perhaps the majority, of bioethicists are, to put it frankly, less than competent. I believe that this is a view a good number of philosophers share. The bioethics industry is, unfortunately, populated by many individuals whom one might even call second-rate philosophers. They have found themselves unable to grapple with the more technical or abstract areas of philosophy--or at least to make a name for themselves in such areas--but have found that it is relatively easy to forge a name for oneself in the bioethics business. 

If this is true of second-rate philosopher-bioethicists, what about decision-theory bioethicists? 

No one should subscribe to the reasoning of a bioethicist, even one as eminent as Dr Emanuel, without kicking the tyres. He should be asked two questions: what makes us human and what makes right right and wrong wrong. If we can agree on the philosophical bits, it is much more likely that we will agree on the practical consequences which flow from them. 

Let's say that your mother has Alzheimer's and breaks her hip. Let's say that all the bioethicists on the hospital ethics committee have degrees in behavioral economics, psychology, decision theory or sociology. Would you find that reassuring? When tough decisions have to be made about her future, would you expect them to treat your mother as a unique human being with inalienable dignity? Probably not. Probably the thought would cross your mind that these guys may know a lot about quality-adjusted life years, but not a lot about how precious a human life is. In fact, the thought might cross your mind that this looks more like a death panel than an ethics committee. 

No doubt the ASBH would respond, Trust us! We are honourable men. Decent people like us would never ignore your mother's dignity. Hopefully this is true of most members of the ASBH. But trust us is not a very persuasive argument.

MercatorNet. A voice for human dignity. Our focus is parenting and family issues, bioethics, religion, philosophy and entertainment.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 15, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > That's a stunning graph.
> ...


Nice rant from Big Strawman, yet again.

Even so, how is Big Edumacation supposed to have any better results?


----------



## Polk (Nov 15, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Educated people reject Socialism, hence our sabotaged educational system tries to keep people ignorant.



You consider anything to the left of Pinochet to be "socialist".


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 15, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> The problem with our education system is that it teaches children how to pass a test instead of how to solve a problem...it focuses on disconnected knowledge and creates dysfunctional intelligence...



This.

I find that students wipe the memory tapes as soon as they pass the test on the material.  They can pass college algebra, they can pass trigonometry, but once they get to Calculus I, they're dead in the water.  They've forgotten the exponential rules they memorized to pass college algebra and as such can't apply the power rule to a simple cube root of x.

There is an argument to be made for an approach that allows students to discover results on their own, especially if the goal is to create students capable of surviving the typical second semester (Integral) Calculus course.  

Mathematics courses can be taught "algorithmically" prior to that point.  Namely, ask a student to memorize an algorithm, teach them to recognize the application of that algorithm, then allow them to plug and chug away like happy little calculators.  Students taught in such a manner will have sufficient capability to survive the day to day world and the mathematics involved, and will possess a rudimentary mathematics knowledge for application to other topics.

However, starting early in a standard Integral Calculus course, that approach fails.  Solving integrals is not an algorithmic process.  It is much closer to the reasoning involved in a proof based, or axiomatic approach, to Euclidean geometry or the Trigonometric Identities material in a standard Trigonometry rotation.  Students learn to use algorithms such as Trigonometric Substitution and Partial Fractions not as the end of a problem, or even as the total solution, but as one tool in a full toolbox of tricks.

I'd have to look at the NCTM's agenda in that report, but I would guess that they, like the AMS (American Mathematical Society) and the MAA (Mathematical Association of America) are deeply concerned about the number of American born Math Ph'D's in America (an issue the National Security Agency is starting to get deeply concerned about too).  The approach the NCTM is advocating will produce more American Ph'D's, though it could be problematic for students lacking basic reasoning skills.

Historically, it is interesting to notice that what the NCTM is advocating is how math used to be taught.  If you don't buy that, you should look at Euclid's Elements, which for nearly 2000 years was the standard book of mathematical education.  It is a harsh and unforgiving book that absolutely does not teach math from an algorithmic view.  This method is coming back at the 200+ level in colleges across the nation as the Moore Method, which I've considered using in my own 300 level Geometry course.


----------



## Polk (Nov 15, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with our education system is that it teaches children how to pass a test instead of how to solve a problem...it focuses on disconnected knowledge and creates dysfunctional intelligence...
> ...



I agree 110%.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 15, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



It might serve you to actually understand the content, nuances and ramifications of what YOU post...You right wing paranoid types latch onto "words" that create unrealistic FEAR...

COMMUNITARIANISM....omg!!!! What a scary word...

But what's missing from you and your paranoid bluster is the key word you highlighted: *balance...*

From YOUR link...

_Communitarians are critical of community institutions that are authoritarian and restrictive, and that cannot bear scrutiny within a larger framework of human rights and equal opportunities. They accept the modern condition that we are located within a web of pluralistic communities with crosscutting tugs and pulls, and genuine value conflicts within them, and within selves. But, as Jean Bethke Elshtain notes in her elaboration on the communitarian individual who happens to be a woman, "the contract model [of liberalism] leaves little space for those contributions of women that have been linked to the human life cycle, to the protection and nurturance of vulnerable human existence. In contractarian terms, women become individuals only when they, too, join the ranks of the sovereign-self ideal. In the rights-absolutist climate of opinion, women are likely to be seen as victims or suckers if they fail to join the 'separated' celebration with anything less than total enthusiasm."

The "Responsive Communitarian Platform," drafted by Amitai Etzioni, Mary Ann Glendon and William Galston in November 1991, sketches out the basic framework. It urges that we start with the family and its central role in time-intensive moral education, ensuring that workplaces provide maximum supports for parents through working time innovations, and warning against avoidable divorces in the interests of children first. The second line of defense is reviving moral education in schools at all levels, including the values of tolerance, peaceful conflict resolution, the superiority of democratic government, hard work and saving. It also argues for devolving government services to their appropriate levels, pursuing new kinds of public-private partnerships, and developing national and local service programs. _

The communitarian values that would place a woman that chooses to be just a "mother" on par with women that "join the ranks of the sovereign-self ideal" would be the SAME values that would "treat your mother as a unique human being with inalienable dignity"

You have the I-shoe on the wrong foot...


----------



## Si modo (Nov 15, 2009)

Useful idiots.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I know it's a terrible mistake to encourage you by answering your spittle-strewn posts, but you are so attention-needy.

But-I don't want a random reader to think you have any sense, so...

Having no-doubt absorbed the government school dogma, you cannot understand this key word:
                               rights.

"Commie-unitarians" such as Dr. Zeke and you think Americans have to give up rights for the collective.

This nation was founded on liberty. Not equality.  Liberty.

: the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice 

Now for readers of this post, I commend to you an understanding of communitarianism.

"Though the term communitarianism is of 20th-century origin, it is derived from the 1840s term communitarian, which was coined by Goodwyn Barmby to refer to one who was a member or advocate of a communalist society. Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution."

Communitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you find those views in the Constitution?

"Communitarians would, again, shift the balance, arguing that the "I" is constituted through the "We" in a dynamic tension."
CPN - Tools

Get it? We all work for the greater good, the master.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program

Now, if you lean in that direction, you are assuming that all would benefit equally in the "we..."
better re-read 'Animal Farm' to see that some animals are more equal than others.


----------



## rdean (Nov 15, 2009)

Didn't seem like a very good article to me.

From the Article:

Hung-Hsi Wu, a Berkeley mathematician, expressed the view of many of his peers when he wrote in 1997 that the brand of mathematics purveyed by the NCTMs 1989 report has the potential to change completely the undergraduate mathematics curriculum and to throttle the normal process of producing a competent corps of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.

Don't worry, if some kid wants to be a scientist, engineer or mathematician, not even a "bad" school will stop them.

You can't just "learn" to be a scientist, you have to be "driven".  

The fact that any "conservatives" would have an opinion on math is funny to me.  To a conservative, math means "finger counting" and very basic algebra.  To an engineer, real math starts at third level calculus and differential linear equations.  Same for a novice actuary or a statistician.

And then for a conservative to push "science"?  What's that about?  Uh oh!  Science means evolution.  Since evolution is now supported by biology, botany, physiology, astronomy, paleontology, geology, plate tectonics, genetics and every other branch of science I can thinks of, seems science is the last thing a conservative would want their kid to learn.

Not sure where the debate is?  As long as conservatives want to push a "mystical agenda", I can't figure out what they mean by "educational reform".  Does that mean, don't pay teachers?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2009)

rdean said:


> Didn't seem like a very good article to me.
> 
> From the Article:
> 
> ...



Ah, deanie-weenie, thanks for poppin' up just when we needed an example of the kind of mindless dolt this 'progressive' system turns out.

Nor did you have to comment, "Didn't seem like a very good article to me..." 'cause it wouldn't be without Archie and Jughead in it.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 15, 2009)

Don't worry about 'bad' schools, says rdean.  That about sums up what the left wants - useful idiots.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 15, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


 

_We_...an interesting word...where can we find that word...and concept...

*We the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the *common* defence, promote the *general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselve*s *and* our* Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

*We* hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men are created equal*, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted *among men*, deriving their just powers *from the consent of the governed.
*

There is no "I" in either document...We is plural, not a singular reference... I don't believe anyone should forfeit their rights, but again, your strict right wing ideology has no balance or moderation...you don't have the right to to do as one pleases if in doing so it infringes on another person's rights...

We live in a society, not a jungle...survival of the fittest sounds noble, but more than half of "We, the people" living in this society are either dependents or vulnerable...the young, the old and the disabled...

Every one of your ghoulish and paranoid fears would come to fruition in YOUR social model... Maybe you need to read up on far right ideologies like yours...the Nazi's


----------



## Oddball (Nov 15, 2009)

Looks like we finally got to Godwin's law! 

Who was it again, who said "Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue"?

Oh yeah.....Barry Goldwater.

Poseur.


----------



## Annie (Nov 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> Looks like we finally got to Godwin's law!
> 
> Who was it again, who said "Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue"?
> 
> ...



LOL! Bfgrn is a thread killer.


----------



## rdean (Nov 15, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Don't worry about 'bad' schools, says rdean.  That about sums up what the left wants - useful idiots.



I said, "Don't worry, if some kid wants to be a scientist, engineer or mathematician, not even a "bad" school will stop them."

But you quoted me as saying, "Don't worry about 'bad' schools, says rdean."

LSOS


----------



## rdean (Nov 15, 2009)

Notice that when it comes to solutions, the conservative answer is always either "blow it up" or "make it better".


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> Looks like we finally got to Godwin's law!
> 
> Who was it again, who said "Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue"?
> 
> ...



Close...for a pea brain...

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater

Hey DUDe...when are you going to engage; or will you spend your life as a spectator?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 15, 2009)

And let me remind you of your ham-handed invocation of Nazis to attempt to make some incomprehensible point or another, and that you're a poseur of a "libertarian", Jethro.


----------



## rdean (Nov 15, 2009)

Dude said:


> And let me remind you of your ham-handed invocation of Nazis to attempt to make some incomprehensible point or another, and that you're a poseur of a "libertarian", Jethro.



Nazi?  Isn't that what conservatives call the President of the United States?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 15, 2009)

Polk said:


> I agree 110%.



Thanks, though that's a funny thing to say to a Mathematician 

I'd be really curious if the folks upset at this "discovery" based approach have any knowledge of the classical methods of teaching mathematics, and by classical I mean Library of Alexandria to mid 1800's.  A student that was used to the kind of algorithmic reasoning that the OP seems to advocate over the NCTM would get their teeth kicked in by books like Euclid's Elements and Diophantus' Arithmetica.  These are books that some of the greatest minds in history cut their teeth on mathematically.  Lincoln himself used the Elements to train his mind for practicing law.  Fermat, probably the greatest of the amateur mathematicians used to read the Arithmetica for relaxation.

If you're not familiar with the classical method, you wouldn't give a student a solution, or even a clue how to solve the problem.  You'd instead give a student a list of axioms, definitions, and notation, then just hand them a book chock full of problems and say "good luck."

The NCTM is advocating going back to a method that produced some of the greatest scientific minds in history, rather than teaching a student how to pass a standardized test.  That may not work for every single student, but it just might be worth a shot.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 15, 2009)

rdean said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > And let me remind you of your ham-handed invocation of Nazis to attempt to make some incomprehensible point or another, and that you're a poseur of a "libertarian", Jethro.
> ...


Your pathetic attempt at deflection is a failure.


----------



## rdean (Nov 15, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > I agree 110%.
> ...



Yea, except that won't work for "all" students.  The real problem with our educational system is that it tries to be all things for all people and fails everyone.

Who could be a great scientist?  Probably the top 0.000002% of the top 10%, or less.

We need to set up trade schools.  Lay out educational goals.  Get over the idea that that you can "teach" genius.  Hell, half the country believes evolution isn't "real".

Then when you have rich families who "pull strings" so their kids can "achieve" with mediocre grades, it lowers the worth of the education.

Our system is messed up because it's politicized.  Besides, people don't want their kids taught to "think".  They want their kids indoctrinated with "ideology".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 15, 2009)

College kids leave convinced FDR was a "Great" President

Average unemployment of 17% for 8 whole fucking years is how we measure "Greatness"


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> And let me remind you of your ham-handed invocation of Nazis to attempt to make some incomprehensible point or another, and that you're a poseur of a "libertarian", Jethro.



I'm not surprised at YOUR incomprehension...my argument is way over your head...it was the Nazis that believed like PC in survival of the fittest; Aryan purity... the weak, the disabled, the old and the feeble were discarded as either poison to the gene pool, defective or a burden to society...

If you had been paying attention as you sit in the peanut galley as a spectator of life, you would be aware that I said more than once I am a JFK liberal AND a Goldwater libertarian...in THAT order. There are many things I agree with Goldwater on and there are many things I don't...

You call yourself a libertarian...yet I hear nothing from you to indicate you are anything but a right wing pea brain...you offer as proof a smug "read up on your F. A. Hayek"...yea, a man who had disdain for the term libertarian, but not as much as he had disdain for conservatives...

"Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe. The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig - with the stress on the "old." 
F. A. Hayek - Why I Am Not a Conservative

I surmise you are a faux libertarian like Grover Norquist (I have to surmise because you are a spectator that lacks the courage to engage in the debate of ideas)...if that's your idea of a libertarian, then you should "read up on your Mein Kampf..."

When you know that you're capable of dealing with whatever comes, you have the only security the world has to offer
*Harry Browne*


----------



## California Girl (Nov 16, 2009)

rdean said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > And let me remind you of your ham-handed invocation of Nazis to attempt to make some incomprehensible point or another, and that you're a poseur of a "libertarian", Jethro.
> ...



No it isn't. However, I (as an individual) am comfortable calling you 'idiot', if that helps.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 16, 2009)

Annie said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like we finally got to Godwin's law!
> ...



This thread was never about education...PC's opening post was merely pretext for her real agenda...pinning Marxism to the left nefariously through Paulo Freire...

The thread died from that point on...PC has no real interest in the outcome of "others"

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." 
*Lakota Sioux Proverb*


----------



## rdean (Nov 16, 2009)

California Girl said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Aren't those signs with Obama wearing a little tiny mustache and photo shopped into wearing a brown uniform with swastikas just another way of calling him a "Nazi"?

Conservatives are so funny.  They say one thing, then when you say, &#8220;Hey, that&#8217;s a terrible thing to say&#8221;, they say, but I didn&#8217;t say that.

It&#8217;s because they are able to ignore the real world and see only their imagined world.  But what a terrible world that is.  Full of fear and &#8220;death panels&#8221; and terror lurking around every corner.  Sad.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 16, 2009)

rdean said:


> Yea, except that won't work for "all" students.  The real problem with our educational system is that it tries to be all things for all people and fails everyone.
> 
> Who could be a great scientist?  Probably the top 0.000002% of the top 10%, or less.
> 
> ...



I agree.

At some point there has to be a reckoning in the school.  A point where you say:  "This kid wants to learn, this kid doesn't" and be done with it.

I have two brothers.  I went on to college, then graduate school, and now hold a Ph'D.  I'm pretty happy with the life I have.

My younger brother didn't like school, but he went on to college anyways.  He dropped out due to illness and never went back.  He now has a job and a family and is happy.

My youngest brother decided that high school was enough for him.  He now owns his own house, has a family, a good job, and is a pretty happy guy.  He might go back to school one day.

Not everyone needs to go to college.  Not everyone wants to.   The sooner we realize that, the better off we'll all be.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 16, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> This thread was never about education...PC's opening post was merely pretext for her real agenda...pinning Marxism to the left nefariously through Paulo Freire...
> 
> The thread died from that point on...PC has no real interest in the outcome of "others"
> 
> ...



I suspect you're right.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 16, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


She doen't have to go to the trouble....The left does a good enough job of pinning Marxism to itself.

Subsequently, your Marxist proclivities are exposed by the pretense that you're more concerned with the outcomes of "others" than even they are.


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 16, 2009)

The old 'us versus them' argument, we are good they are bad, what hokum. This topic I know too well being married to a math teacher of twenty plus years and having a math genius son who taught for a short time before saying it is just too aggravating teaching children who have little interest in math. He should have taught at a college level but makes an excellent livelihood programming. PoliticalChic, and the few empty headed wingnuts who chimed in agreement, has a hard time facing the fact teaching is an art and it requires doing what works and trying different things when something is not working. It has nothing to do with right v left. But I think I agree a bit with one conservative when it comes to advanced study and education. Children differ and math is one topic that few like or even comprehend at the advanced levels. 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Real-Education-Bringing-Americas-Schools/dp/0307405397/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258391005&sr=1-2]Amazon.com: Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality (9780307405395): Charles Murray: Books[/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



You're right, I forgot...those 45,000 Americans that died last year because they didn't have health insurance were just LAZY...too f_cking lazy to want to LIVE!


----------



## Oddball (Nov 16, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > And let me remind you of your ham-handed invocation of Nazis to attempt to make some incomprehensible point or another, and that you're a poseur of a "libertarian", Jethro.
> ...


None of your pedantic arguments are over my head, and I'm quite well versed in Hayek, neutron brain.

That you quote Hayek and other well known libertarians ad nauseum, as a flimsy pretext to claim that you yourself share those predilections, is as transparently cynical as it gets.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



That you SAY "I'm quite well versed in Hayek" and oblivious to his disdain for the libertarian label belies your claim...

Maybe if you say it more forcefully...


----------



## rdean (Nov 16, 2009)

Why does the right push that darn, "Chicken Little" mentality?

Death Panels
Redistribution of Wealth (which most of them don't have)
Kill Grandma
al Queda is comming
Government is watching

It must be really stressful to live in this constant state of "alarm".  No wonder so many drink.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 16, 2009)

Why does the left push that darn, "Chicken Little" mentality?

People dying in the streets
Rich people hogging up all the wealth
Gullible warming
Robber Barons
Little chiiillldrrreeennn starving

Physician, heal thyself.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 16, 2009)

rdean said:


> Why does the right push that darn, "Chicken Little" mentality?
> 
> Death Panels
> Redistribution of Wealth (which most of them don't have)
> ...



Here's an interesting article I came across last year...

Triumph of the Red-State Fascists

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


----------



## PeterS (Nov 16, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see this as a liberal/conservative issue, but good article.
> ...



When have conservatives ever had public schools to reclaim?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 16, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Educated people reject Socialism, hence our sabotaged educational system tries to keep people ignorant.



I see. We have a higher educational average than Germany or France?


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 16, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> This thread was never about education...PC's opening post was merely pretext for her real agenda...pinning Marxism to the left nefariously through Paulo Freire...
> 
> The thread died from that point on...PC has no real interest in the outcome of "others"




I agree and most wingnuts exhibit the classic conservative worldview.

"Researchers help define what makes a political conservative" 

'Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:'

Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management

07.22.2003 - Researchers help define what makes a political conservative


----------



## Oddball (Nov 16, 2009)

And when all else fails, paint those who oppose your politics as mentally unbalanced.

Nope, nothing haughty and elitist about that.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> And when all else fails, paint those who oppose your politics as mentally unbalanced.
> 
> Nope, nothing haughty and elitist about that.



And when you don't have any ability to repudiate facts, resort to "cliches" 

Nope, nothing lazy ass or ignorant about that


----------



## PeterS (Nov 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> And when all else fails, paint those who oppose your politics as mentally unbalanced.
> 
> Nope, nothing haughty and elitist about that.



What else failed?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 16, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > And when all else fails, paint those who oppose your politics as mentally unbalanced.
> ...


What would be the point in repudiating self-evident deflection and blatant elitist snobbery, when it refutes itself?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 16, 2009)

Of course, two can play Midcant's idiotic game:



> Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
> 
> creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
> satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
> ...



LiveLeak.com - Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts


----------



## Toro (Nov 16, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Educated people reject Socialism, hence our sabotaged educational system tries to keep people ignorant.



That's right.  We need to teach the "science" of Creationism!  

Intelligent Design! Intelligent Design!


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 16, 2009)

Dude said:


> Of course, two can play Midcant's idiotic game:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, we could look at facts...but I know dogma is more up your alley...

Funny, I heard Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter interviewed by Thom Hartmann last year... Hartmann dismantled him..."doc" even admitted his next book could be called The Conservative Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness! To say the "doc" is a lightweight opportunist would be charitable... I'd be more than happy to e-mail you the podcast...

The study midcan5 posted info on is: Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

In that study the authors examined 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries.

Hey, but you have "doc"


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 16, 2009)

I see a lot of ignorance regarding the teaching of arithmetic. 
6 year old children do not have the development to learn abstract algebra. 
They can learn basic addition. 
A good founding in arithmetic is essential to a better understanding of algebra in high school.
First grade math should drill the students daily in addition. Weekly tests measure their retention.
Second grade students drill daily in subtraction, with weekly tests.
Third grade Multiplication drills and tests
4th grade long division
5th grade fractions

Just like sports, the secret is drill, drill, drill.

It is not glamorous, it is not fun for the teacher, it is not a lot of things.
It is necessary to teach the children how to do basic arithmetic. 
Calculators do not help, they hinder. They hinder because they become a crutch and excuse in one "I can use a calculator when I'm not in class."
Yes, but only if you can frame the right question. Which requires understanding the math, and that understanding begins with a facility at arithmetic which is sadly lacking in too many young people today.

You can catch up at a latter date, learning everything you need to know in college, but that tends to produce what I term neo-idiot savants; people who are highly trained in a very narrow field. Had they but received a better primary education they might be well rounded, but they are not, and the competitive nature of the workplace forces specialization which makes replacing those lost years all the harder.

Of course the math drill method is a very conservative teaching method, going back centuries, so it might not appeal to brain damaged liberals who want the "newest" trend.


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> And when all else fails, paint those who oppose your politics as mentally unbalanced....



A curious comeback that contains a kernel of truth the author may not agree with - not 'unbalanced' but certainly not balanced. LOL

See: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Are-Doomed-Reclaiming-Conservative-Pessimism/dp/0307409589/ref=tag_cdp_bkt_edpp_url]Amazon.com: We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism (9780307409584): John Derbyshire: Books[/ame]


This is consistent with the Berkeley study and other comments from the more liberal and balanced folk above.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 17, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > And when all else fails, paint those who oppose your politics as mentally unbalanced....
> ...



Reclaiming Conservative *Pessimism *aptly describes the right wing mind...

Interesting...one of DUDe's heroes is F. A. Hayek, who DUDe calls a libertarian, even though Hayek himself doesn't. But DUDe claims: "I'm quite well versed in Hayek"...

Here is a quote from a man F. A. Hayek calls one of the greatest liberals...

"Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear."
*William E. Gladstone*

Irony abounds!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> I see a lot of ignorance regarding the teaching of arithmetic.
> 6 year old children do not have the development to learn abstract algebra.
> They can learn basic addition.
> A good founding in arithmetic is essential to a better understanding of algebra in high school.
> ...



You seem to have experience in this area.

And it is interesting that none of our reliably doctrinaire liberal friends have found it beneficial to argue the points you made.

We use a curriculum pretty much as you outline it, and, of course, don't allow calculators.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 17, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > This thread was never about education...PC's opening post was merely pretext for her real agenda...pinning Marxism to the left nefariously through Paulo Freire...
> ...


Obviously you haven't quite the capacity to properly analyze the work.  That's OK, though; it's not your fault.






Isn't it fun?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 17, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> I see a lot of ignorance regarding the teaching of arithmetic.



For clarity sake, what you discuss next is indeed teaching Arithmetic, just Arithmetic.  What the NCTM is advocating is teaching Mathematics. 



> 6 year old children do not have the development to learn abstract algebra.


 
Demonstrably false, as most blanket statements turn out to be.  Any child that can tell time can learn modular arithmetic.  Once they learn modular arithmetic they can learn the basics of finite abellian groups.  That's the building block of most 300 level University abstract algebra courses.  See Gallian's wonderful book.

The real debate is _should_ a younger students be taught the basics of abstract algebra or should we be focusing on just arithmetic.  That speaks to the goal of math education. If you want a population that is merely math literate, then arithmetic is enough.  If you want to produce more mathematicians, then maybe we should push harder.

The number of American Math Ph'D's is starting to get alarming.  If you don't see that as a national security issue, you should talk to the NSA.



> They can learn basic addition.
> A good founding in arithmetic is essential to a better understanding of algebra in high school.


 
Agreed.



> First grade math should drill the students daily in addition. Weekly tests measure their retention.


 
Tests do not measure retention unless the test are cummulative.  Just a minor point.  Part of the issues in the educational system is that tests are not cummulative enough and students frequently can't recall what they learned last week, much less last year.



> Second grade students drill daily in subtraction, with weekly tests.
> Third grade Multiplication drills and tests
> 4th grade long division
> 5th grade fractions
> ...


 
Practice is essential for mathematical understanding.  This is why teachers assign lots of homework, especially in mathematics.  However, a student that is drilling a mistake repeatedly learns the mistake.  Part of the drilling has to be constant corrective feedback.  

That's why I'm very much in favor of computerized homework supplementing any mathematical course prior to Calculus.  The corrective feedback is that important.



> It is not glamorous, it is not fun for the teacher, it is not a lot of things.
> It is necessary to teach the children how to do basic arithmetic.
> Calculators do not help, they hinder. They hinder because they become a crutch and excuse in one "I can use a calculator when I'm not in class."
> Yes, but only if you can frame the right question. Which requires understanding the math, and that understanding begins with a facility at arithmetic which is sadly lacking in too many young people today.



Arithmetic knowledge alone will not allow a student to solve complicated problems.  That is kinda the point of the NCTM guidelines, which the OP missed. 



> You can catch up at a latter date, learning everything you need to know in college, but that tends to produce what I term neo-idiot savants; people who are highly trained in a very narrow field. Had they but received a better primary education they might be well rounded, but they are not, and the competitive nature of the workplace forces specialization which makes replacing those lost years all the harder.


 
The state of current knowledge is such that specialization is practically required.  The last "complete" Mathematician is generally acknowledged to be Gauss, and the last Universalist was Poincare.



> Of course the math drill method is a very conservative teaching method, going back centuries, so it might not appeal to brain damaged liberals who want the "newest" trend.



Actually, the Drill method is new compared to the Moore Method as used in Euclid.  What the NCTM is advocating is actually a very old method.  You have it backwards.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 17, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> You seem to have experience in this area.
> 
> And it is interesting that none of our reliably doctrinaire liberal friends have found it beneficial to argue the points you made.
> 
> We use a curriculum pretty much as you outline it, and, of course, don't allow calculators.



I'm really very curious why you make a pointed attempt to disregard any view point in this thread that does not support yours.  It seems you are not interested in intellectual debate, just more Con vs Lib bu11$h1t


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 17, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> > 6 year old children do not have the development to learn abstract algebra.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, we hear from an NEA sponsor.
Have you ever taught a class of 22 first graders? (22 being the class size limit in Texas for elementary education the last time I checked) A third or more have an older sibling and enter knowing they can slack and the teacher cannot complain. Four or five have serious learning disabilities (generally at least 1 is a crack baby) and at least two (Perhaps from among the ones with Learning problems perhaps not)  are chronic troublemakers. You are not allowed to fail more than two. You are not allowed to get rid of the troublemakers or send the truly brain damaged ones to special education. 
Now sure, if you start by selecting only the best candidates out of an entire county, then maybe you can begin working on something more than arithmetic at first grade. 
Maybe.
But if you have a set of typical students all the "extra" distractions will be just that - distractions from learning *ANYTHING* related to math.
Those students will never learn Algebra. They will never get beyond the ability to punch numbers in a calculator and hope for the right answer. They won't be able to manage a tight budget well, nor plan for their retirement properly. They will purchase the large economy size even when the price per unit is more than the smaller size because they can't do that much basic math. 

As for the Euclidean method - the teaching of Geometry in the classical era was mostly done for the already capable elite who had mastered the art of Arithmetic at an earlier age. 

Children can learn to tell time because they have a concrete example how it works - the watch on their hand. It is a huge conceptual step from that to modular arithmetic as anyone who has worked with 6 year old children knows. 

Cumulative tests? Of course tests are cumulative, this is math, where everything they learn build upon what they already know. Subtraction (2nd grade) builds on addition. So does multiplication (3rd grade), as does Long Division (4th grade) - in fact starting in 4th grade everything is used for long division. 
Trying for too much means the students have an excuse to fail, and justifying an approach because Enrico Fermi could do it that way is asinine.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 17, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Ah, we hear from an NEA sponsor.



Trite response.  Makes for a promising first line.



> Have you ever taught a class of 22 first graders? (22 being the class size limit in Texas for elementary education the last time I checked) A third or more have an older sibling and enter knowing they can slack and the teacher cannot complain. Four or five have serious learning disabilities (generally at least 1 is a crack baby) and at least two (Perhaps from among the ones with Learning problems perhaps not)  are chronic troublemakers. You are not allowed to fail more than two. You are not allowed to get rid of the troublemakers or send the truly brain damaged ones to special education.



So, your solution for this is....

The NCTM is trying to address the failings in the teaching of mathematics.  If these are the problems teachers are facing, then the school systems and parents need to address them.

The point is, the bar has to be set high so the students rise to meet the challenge.  Your paragraph above makes it sound like the appropriate response is to bring the bar lower and let the kids crawl under it.

Bottom line is this:  Everyone knows there are problems in the classroom.  The NCTM is trying to address the issues related to mathematics.



> Now sure, if you start by selecting only the best candidates out of an entire county, then maybe you can begin working on something more than arithmetic at first grade.



So do so.  Pull the ones that can handle the more advanced topics and teach them.



> Maybe.
> But if you have a set of typical students all the "extra" distractions will be just that - distractions from learning *ANYTHING* related to math.
> Those students will never learn Algebra. They will never get beyond the ability to punch numbers in a calculator and hope for the right answer. They won't be able to manage a tight budget well, nor plan for their retirement properly. They will purchase the large economy size even when the price per unit is more than the smaller size because they can't do that much basic math.



More drivel along the lines of the first paragraph.



> As for the Euclidean method - the teaching of Geometry in the classical era was mostly done for the already capable elite who had mastered the art of Arithmetic at an earlier age.



Those students that "mastered" Arithmetic probably learned from Nichomachus Introducto Arithmeticae, which like many textbooks of the day consisted of lists of problems with either no solution, or no indication of how the solution was derived.

Outside of Nichomachus' book or Diophantus book, it was only much later, basically the late 1400's or early 1500's, that mathematicians like Vieta really made Arithmetic a widespread study.  Prior to that Arithmetic was done with geometric methods.



> Children can learn to tell time because they have a concrete example how it works - the watch on their hand. It is a huge conceptual step from that to modular arithmetic as anyone who has worked with 6 year old children knows.



And with manipulatives you can teach children about symmetric groups or other modular math.  The question is _should we?_



> Cumulative tests? Of course tests are cumulative, this is math, where everything they learn build upon what they already know.



We say that in Mathematics, but if you've taught that you know it isn't 100% true once you're past the very basic concepts of Arithmetic.  As I said before, when students reach me in Calculus they can't apply the power rule to a simple cube root.

I know for a FACT they were taught exponent rules.  They've simply forgotten them as soon as it didn't show up on a test.

However, the students that inherently understood the logic behind how the exponent rules work recover faster than those that simply memorized to get through.



> Subtraction (2nd grade) builds on addition. So does multiplication (3rd grade), as does Long Division (4th grade) - in fact starting in 4th grade everything is used for long division.
> Trying for too much means the students have an excuse to fail, and justifying an approach because Enrico Fermi could do it that way is asinine.



So again, you're in favor of lowering the bar?

Yes, an advanced approach won't work for every student.  Not every student can sum up the numbers from 1 to 100 in elementary school by developing the formula.  However, it doesn't hurt to try, and if it sticks good.  

Maybe the best way will turn out to be memorization and drilling instead of thinking and reasoning.  I can guarantee you though, a student that gets by in life by simply memorizing algorithms will be dead in the water when faced with Integral Calculus, Differential Equations, Analysis, etc.  If the goal is to produce more students that can succeed in advanced mathematics course, then more than memorization is required.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 17, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> So again, you're in favor of lowering the bar?



It is clear they lowered the bar in your reading comprehension class. 
The scattered approach which moronic liberals try to apply to teaching *does not work*
Then they "lower the bar" so everyone gets through.
Instead concentrate at the low levels on what they must have for upper levels.
Arithmetic.
Raise the bar so students have to be truly *good* at arithmetic to pass. None of the liberal gobbledygook "they learned the method and that's good enough" nonsense.
They learn to add or they repeat first grade. Period.
Repeat through the higher grades.

To make classrooms more conducive to learning, remove the brain damaged crack babies and the chronic troublemakers. 
Drill, Drill, Drill 
On Arithmetic. Make lack of learning carry consequences, and poor behavior carry serious consequences. 
Then, when the students reach higher grades, they can learn Algebra, Geometry, and other more advanced topics. 
But without the foundation in Arithmetic, all the work in algebra will be gibberish to them. How can you convince a person that (7x+3y)+(9x+4y) actually equals 16x+7y if they are unable to add 9+7 or even 3+4?
The answer is you can't without taking the time to go back and cover basic arithmetic. 
So get the basics first, then go to the advanced topics. If children have the right introduction to the basics, then most high school seniors can manage trig. All except the brain damaged ones can do Algebra and Geometry. About half can learn calculus.

But they don't and the reason is clear; the lamebrain scattergun approach so beloved of liberal idiots only works for the most gifted students. If you are comfortable teaching only one child in a thousand (or less) then that is your problem. I want to raise the bar and see half the students from every high school class able to use calculus to solve real world problems.


----------



## rdean (Nov 17, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> I see a lot of ignorance regarding the teaching of arithmetic.
> 6 year old children do not have the development to learn abstract algebra.
> They can learn basic addition.
> A good founding in arithmetic is essential to a better understanding of algebra in high school.
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to have experience in this area.
> ...



Here's why"

1.. In 1989, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the chief professional organization for mathematics educators and education faculty, issued Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. The document presented standards for grades K12, including algebra. *The underlying goals of the standardsnever made clear to the general publicwere social, not academic.*

2. "...the employment of trendy, though empirically unsupported, pedagogical and organizational methods that essentially dumb down math content..."

3. "Some influential educators sought to dismiss the traditional curriculum altogether, viewing it as a white, Christian, heterosexual-male product ..."

4."According to cultural-historical activity theory, schooling as it exists today reinforces an illegitimate social order."

5. "...students construct their own understanding of mathematics and find their own math solutions."

6. "Teacher-directed learning goes out the window, despite its demonstrated benefits for students with learning problems..."

7."... they downplay basic arithmetic skills and practice, encouraging kids to use calculators from kindergarten on. The educators also neglect the teaching of standard algorithms (mathematical procedures commonly taught everywhere, with only minor variations, because of their general applicability)."

8. _Pedagogy of the Oppressed_, by the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire.This ed-school bestseller is, instead, a utopian political tract calling for the overthrow of capitalist hegemony and the creation of classless societies.

9.  The pedagogical point of Freires thesis : its opposition to *taxing students with any actual academic content,* which Freire derides as official knowledge that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society.

10. From Annie's post: "The curriculums failure was undeniable: not one of my students knew his or her times tables, and few had mastered even the most basic operations; knowledge of multiplication and division was abysmal."



And so, my friend, I find little to recommend, for education, in the writings of those who agree with the clap-trap that sees 'social justice' as an aim, to any degree, in academic subjects.

My recommendation to teachers, to the school system, is simply "do your job."

Does that answer your question?


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 17, 2009)

rdean said:


> And curiously, less than 6% of scientists identify themselves as "Republican".
> 
> Conservatives depend way more on those darn liberals.  But its a trade off.  Conservatives breed and liberals do everything else.


Yet another ignoramus comments on education. 
As an example of how the system fails, you are perfect.
Everything  you said is more "blah blah blah" from someone who clearly has *no idea* concerning the topic at hand.
First grade students benefit far more from memorizing the addition tables than they do from "learning the abstract method" behind addition and then applying it to specific cases as needed. It's like putting the desert before the main course, you just ruin the meal. Children need to learn basic arithmetic before they attempt to go into algebra and higher topics. 

The liberal method of teaching has failed for the last 30+ years. Go back to methods that worked.
Even if brain damaged liberals object to teaching something other than liberal indoctrination in schools.

In closing let me address your 6% of scientists claim.
"There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." Mark Twain


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2009)

rdean said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > I see a lot of ignorance regarding the teaching of arithmetic.
> ...


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 17, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> *The underlying goals of the standardsnever made clear to the general publicwere social, not academic.*



I call bullshit.  Publish these "secret goals" or retract.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 17, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> It is clear they lowered the bar in your reading comprehension class.



At this point, its clear you have little more than insults.  Refrain from the insults if you want an honest debate.  Using insults shows a mind of low class and lower skill.

I believe you probably have a valid viewpoint and are worthy of debate, but your conduct so far does not reveal that.



> The scattered approach which moronic liberals try to apply to teaching *does not work*
> Then they "lower the bar" so everyone gets through.
> Instead concentrate at the low levels on what they must have for upper levels.
> Arithmetic.



I've yet to see the NCTM advocate lowering the bar. I've yet to see them say to that arithmetic is not important.  The point you're missing is that if you can get across the idea behind the method implied, it enhances reasoning skills and understanding.

A few years ago someone came stomping into my office to tell me about a "new method" on youtube to teach division and multiplication that was "new and wrong and stupid".  I let them vent for a few minutes, and then asked them to play the video.

The new method for division that was so clearly "New and wrong and stupid":  The Euclidean Algorithm.

The person was so tied to basic arithmetic they couldn't see that the method employed was logically equivalent to what they'd been taught.  It was developed different, and as such was wrong.

That's what I've seen with most of these new methods:  They are in fact very old methods or logically equivalent to earlier methods.  However, because they're presented different, teachers without mathematical knowledge struggle to teach these methods and parents tied to understanding a problem in only one way don't get it.

We probably have some similar views on the problems facing Mathematics Education, but you're caught up in the Liberal vs. Conservative divide.  Yes, there are problem teachers.  Yes, there are problem students.  Yes, social promotion needs to stop.  Yes, something has to change.  Yes, there are problems with the math literacy of the general populace.

I'm very interested in solutions because the students coming out of the high schools these days are not ready for Calculus in any shape or form.  It isn't _just_ a lack of Arithmetic, its a plan lack of reasoning skills and that needs to be addressed at some point in a child's education.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 17, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *The underlying goals of the standardsnever made clear to the general publicwere social, not academic.*
> ...



One apparent goal is to make students dependent on calculators


			
				NCTM Standards for Pre-K to grade 2 said:
			
		

> Even at this age, guided work with calculators can enable students to explore number and patterns, focus on problem-solving processes, and investigate realistic applications.


The whole mishmash of ideologue idiocy can be found at the NCTM page


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *The underlying goals of the standardsnever made clear to the general publicwere social, not academic.*
> ...



Watch your language.

Here is the original quote to which you refer:
" The document presented standards for grades K12, including algebra. The underlying goals of the standardsnever made clear to the general publicwere social, not academic."

The article is by Sandra Stotsky.  Sandra Stotsky is a professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas and holds the 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality. Would you like to compare your credentials to hers?

"Principles and Standards for School Mathematics has four major components. First, the Principles for school mathematics reflect basic perspectives on which educators should base decisions that affect school mathematics. These Principles establish a foundation for school mathematics programs by considering the broad issues of equity, curriculum, teaching, learning, assessment, and technology."
Overview: Introduction

It has been purposely made difficult to quote, as
" It would later be fiercely opposed by many parents and mathematics professionals, and rejected by many states and school districts who complained about replacing instruction in arithmetic with writing, coloring, counting, and inventing mathematics unrecognizable to any previous generation of mathematicians or educators. While the standards are available on the internet, *full access by the public is only available by an expensive purchase or subscription.*"
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics | K12 Academics

Progressive education is an outgrowth of the Romantic Movement with roots going back to Jean Jacques Rousseau. John Dewey and William Heard Kilpatrick were instrumental in ensuring the dominance of progressive education theory in teachers colleges through most of the 20th century.[2] In the variant promoted by Kilpatrick, who was especially influential in mathematics education, subjects would be taught to students based on their direct practical value, or if students independently wanted to learn them.[3]
A quarter century of US 'math wars' and political partisanship

A broader understanding of the destruction of the American education system can be found in the following:

"University education departments began to tell future grammar school teachers that they should replace the traditional teacher-centered curriculum, aimed at producing educated citizens who embraced a common American ethic, with a new, child-centered approach that treats every pupils personal development as different and special. During the 1960s, when intellectuals and college students dismissed traditional American values as oppressive barriers to fulfillment, grammar schools generally jettisoned the traditional curriculum. Education professors eagerly joined New Left professors to promote the idea that any top-down imposition of any curriculum would be a right-wing plot designed to perpetuate the dominant white, male, bourgeois power structure, writes education reformer E. D. Hirsch, Jr., in his forthcoming The Making of Americans: Democracy and Our Schools.

When schools threw out the bourgeois values that had helped to sustain Webers rational tempering of the impulse to accumulate wealth, they removed the rationality in rational self-interest, or, as Tocqueville put it, self-interest rightly understood.  The new every child is special curriculum prompted a sharp uptick in students self-absorption, according to psychologists Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell in The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. What resulted was a series of increasingly self-centered generations of young people displaying progressively more narcissistic personality traits, including a growing obsession with material wealth and physical appearance, the authors observe.  Adam Smiths The Theory of Moral Sentiments, traces the evolution of ethics from mans nature as a social being who feels shame if he does something that he believes a neutral observer would consider improper. Modern experiments in neuroscience have tended to confirm Smiths notion that our virtues derive from our empathy for others, therefore being self-centered is the antithesis of a sense of shame." [An extensive explanation of the Lefts control of education may be found in Pedagogy of the Oppressor, by Sol Stern at http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_freirian-pedagogy.html]

Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic? by Steven Malanga, City Journal Summer 2009

The result is the dismal performance of American students based on comparison with other nations.

Nor will I have to retract anything. 

The fault lies in your failure to see the bigger picture, in all of education, and the devolution of society.


----------



## rdean (Nov 17, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > And curiously, less than 6% of scientists identify themselves as "Republican".
> ...



I didn't say "drilling" was bad, but it can become bad very fast.  By concentrating on "memorizing" you take away the "fun" in learning.  Kids learn to hate math because they aren't taught the joy of problem solving.

It's conservatives who teach such nonsense like "magical creation" and "forced memorization".  No wonder kids turn away from science when conservatives tell them that studying science can cause "mental illness".

We know that less than 6% of scientists admit to being Republican after about a dozen threads on this site put up links.  

Many conservatives are the last people who should be teaching children.  Because they aren't teaching.  They are performing "indoctrination".


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 17, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *The underlying goals of the standardsnever made clear to the general publicwere social, not academic.*
> ...



To understand PC's agenda, you have to divest your own sense of decency and honesty...she has ONE agenda...bash liberals, blame liberals for all the wrongs in the world...and create FEAR of the liberal monster SHE creates for you...

To do this, first she has to build the monster...BUT, when you take time to look into the monster she creates, it always evaporates...


-----------------------------------------------------
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for Mathematics Education. ERIC/SMEAC Mathematics Education Digest No. 1, 1990. 

Dr Marilyn Suydam

Current OSU Appointment

Faculty Emeritus, School of Teaching & Learning

In 1989, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) released a document of major importance for improving the quality of mathematics education in grades K-12. This document, "Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics," contains a set of standards for judging mathematics curricula and for evaluating the quality of the curriculum and student achievement. It represents the consensus of NCTM's members about the fundamental content that should be included in the school mathematics curriculum, establishing a framework to guide reform in school mathematics. Inherent in the STANDARDS is the belief that all students need to learn more, and often different, mathematics.

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE STANDARDS?
Technology is changing the workplace, the home, and daily life. Moreover, the mathematics a person needs to know has shifted, and new mathematics is being created as technological applications emerge. Yet the teaching of mathematics has remained relatively unchanged. As it has for centuries, mathematics often relies on rote memorization.

The objectives of mathematics education must be transformed to meet the critical needs of our society: an informed electorate, mathematically literate workers, opportunity for all students, and problem-solving skills that serve lifelong learning. Both the content that is being taught and the way it is taught need to be reconsidered and, in many cases, transformed. To ensure quality, to indicate goals, and to promote change are the three reasons why NCTM issued the STANDARDS.

WHAT ARE THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STANDARDS?
Several assumptions shape the vision of mathematics set forth in the STANDARDS: (1) Mathematical power can and must be at the command of all students in a technological society. (2) Mathematics is something one DOES--solve problems, communicate, reason; it is not a spectator sport. (3) The learning of mathematics is an active process, with students constructing knowledge derived from meaningful experiences and real problems. (4) A curriculum for all includes a broad range of content, a variety of contexts, and deliberate connections. (5) Evaluation is a means of improving instruction and the whole mathematics program.

WHAT GOALS ARE ESTABLISHED FOR STUDENTS?
All students should have opportunities to learn a broad spectrum of mathematics. Toward that end, the STANDARDS state five goals for students: to learn to value mathematics, to learn to reason mathematically, to learn to communicate mathematically, to become confident of their mathematical abilities, and to become mathematical problem solvers.

WHAT IS THE FRAMEWORK FOR SCHOOL MATHEMATICS?
The STANDARDS offer a framework for curriculum development--a logical network of relationships among identified topics of study. Although they specify the key elements of a high-quality school mathematics program, they neither list topics for particular grades nor show a "scope and sequence" chart. Instead, the 40 curriculum standards discuss the content at three grade-level groups: K-4, 5-8, and 9-12. The 14 evaluation standards provide strategies to assess the curriculum, instruction, and program.

The first three curriculum standards for each grade level and three of the evaluation standards deal with problem solving, communication, and reasoning. A fourth curriculum standard, Mathematical Connections, is predicated on the belief that mathematics must be approached as a unified whole. Consequently, curricula should deliberately include instructional activities to reveal the connections among ideas and procedures in mathematics and applications in other subject matter areas.

For each grade-level group, nine or ten content standards supplement the first four curriculum standards. While the titles are sometimes similar, the concepts and processes vary by level. In a lengthy presentation for each standard, the mathematical outcomes for students, the focus of the standard, discussion of what the standard means, and examples of how the content might be taught are provided.

WHAT STANDARDS ARE INCLUDED FOR EACH GRADE CLUSTER?
The 13 standards for K-4 are: Mathematics as Problem Solving, as Communication, and as Reasoning, and Mathematical Connections; Estimation; Number Sense and Numeration; Concepts of Whole Number Operations; Whole Number Computation; Geometry and Spatial Sense; Measurement; Statistics and Probability; Fractions and Decimals; and Patterns and Relationships.

There are 13 standards for grades 5-8: Mathematics as Problem Solving, as Communication, and as Reasoning, and Mathematical Connections; Number and Number Relationships; Number Systems and Number Theory; Computation and Estimation; Patterns and Functions; Algebra; Statistics; Probability; Geometry; and Measurement.

Fourteen standards pertain to grades 9-12: Mathematics as Problem Solving, as Communication, and as Reasoning, and Mathematical Connections; Algebra; Functions; Geometry from a Synthetic Perspective; Geometry from an Algebraic Perspective; Trigonometry; Statistics; Probability; Discrete Mathematics; Conceptual Underpinnings of Calculus; and Mathematical Structure.

WHAT STANDARDS ARE INCLUDED FOR EVALUATION?
Three standards pertain to general assessment: Alignment, Multiple Sources of Information, and Appropriate Assessment Methods and Uses. Seven standards concern student assessment: Mathematical Power, Problem Solving, Communication, Reasoning, Mathematical Concepts, Mathematical Procedures, and Mathematical Disposition. Finally, four standards are on program evaluation; Indicators for Program Evaluation, Curriculum and Instructional Resources, Instruction, and Evaluation Team.

WHAT ARE SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION?
Some aspects of doing mathematics have changed in the last decade, in large part because of technology. Changes in technology and the broadening of the areas in which mathematics is applied have resulted in growth and changes in mathematics itself. Technology makes it imperative that: (1) appropriate calculators should be available to all students at all times; (2) a computer should be available in every classroom for demonstration purposes; (3) every student should have access to a computer for individual and group work; and (4) all students should learn to use the computer as a tool for processing information and performing calculations to investigate and solve problems.

The availability of calculators does not eliminate the need for students to learn algorithms; some proficiency with paper-and-pencil computational algorithms is important. Contrary to the fears of many, there is no evidence to suggest that the availability of calculators makes students dependent on them for simple calculations. Students should be able to decide when they need to calculate and whether they require an exact or approximate answer. They should be able to select and use the most appropriate tool.

A constructive, active view of the learning process must be reflected in the way much of mathematics is taught. Thus, instruction should vary and include opportunities for: appropriate project work; both group and individual assignments; discussion between teacher and students and among students; practice on mathematical methods; and exposition by the teacher.

The STANDARDS were developed with consideration to the content appropriate for all students. This does not suggest that all students are alike; it does suggest that all students should have an opportunity to learn the important ideas of mathematics.

WHAT ARE SOME NEXT STEPS FOR TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS?
The NCTM challenges all to work toward the goal of improving the school mathematics program as identified by the STANDARDS.

Teachers and administrators should obtain the materials listed in the reference section to learn more about the STANDARDS. The school staff should review the current program and instruction to identify changes that are desirable and begin to modify the experiences provided for pupils.

Several states and many school districts have started to modify programs. Materials describing these activities will be published in journals of the NCTM (The Arithmetic Teacher and The Mathematics Teacher) on a regular basis. Schools desiring more information or assistance should contact their state department of education mathematics education coordinator/ specialist, and periodically check Resources in Education and the Current Index to Journals in Education for information and materials.

SELECTED REFERENCES
"Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics." Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989. (Address: 1906 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20091; $25.00, with reduced prices for multiple copies).

Heid, M. Kathleen. "Uses of Technology in Prealgebra and Beginning Algebra." MATHEMATICS TEACHER 83: 194-198; March 1990.

Hirsch, Christian R. and Harold L. Schoen. "A Core Curriculum for Grades 9-12." MATHEMATICS TEACHER 83: 696-701; December 1989.

Mumme, Judith and Julian Weissglass. "The Role of the Teacher in Implementing the Standards." MATHEMATICS TEACHER 82: 522-526; October 1989.

Payne, Joseph N. and Ann E. Towsley. "Implications of NCTM's Standards for Teaching Fractions and Decimals." ARITHMETIC TEACHER 37: 23-26; April 1990.

"Reshaping School Mathematics: A Philosophy and Framework for Curriculum." MATHEMATICS SCIENCES EDUCATION BOARD, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1990. SE 051 291.

Rowan, Thomas E. "The Geometry Standards in K-8 Mathematics." ARITHMETIC TEACHER 37: 24-28; February 1990.

Schoen, Harold L. "Beginning to Implement the Standards in Grades 7-12." MATHEMATICS TEACHER 82: 427-430; September 1989.

Thompson, Alba G. and Diane J. Briars. "Assessing Students Learning to Inform Teaching: The Message in NCTM's Evaluation Standards." ARITHMETIC TEACHER 37: 22-26; December 1989.

Thompson, Charles S. "Number Sense and Numeration in Grades K-8." ARITHMETIC TEACHER 37: 22-24; September 1989.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 17, 2009)

rdean said:


> I didn't say "drilling" was bad, but it can become bad very fast.  By concentrating on "memorizing" you take away the "fun" in learning.  Kids learn to hate math because they aren't taught the joy of problem solving.


Alas, you cannot reliably solve problems with a calculator unless you can solve them without a calculator. The calculator has become central to teaching math, to the point that children cannot perform any math without it and have no clue when they punch the wrong keys that they have the wrong answer. 
Kids learn to hate math because too many elementary education teachers spout nonsense like "Don't worry if it confuses you, math is hard." and "I was never any good at math."



rdean said:


> It's conservatives who teach such nonsense like "magical creation" and "forced memorization".  No wonder kids turn away from science when conservatives tell them that studying science can cause "mental illness".


Where do you get this crap? From some liberal rag disguised as news? Talk about indoctrination.


rdean said:


> We know that less than 6% of scientists admit to being Republican after about a dozen threads on this site put up links.


Sorry, wrong answer. How were those statistics compiled? How was the questionnaire worded? These are critical issues. Asking a scientist 
Do you vote
a - Always Republican
b - Always Democrat
c - It depends on the candidate
could easily get a result of "c" from any reasonable person. 
And then be used by a pollster to show only a small percent of the group polled were "Republicans"



rdean said:


> Many conservatives are the last people who should be teaching children.  Because they aren't teaching.  They are performing "indoctrination".


Many liberals are the last people who should be teaching children.  Because they aren't teaching.  They are performing "indoctrination".

What you need are Teachers to do the teaching.


----------



## chanel (Nov 17, 2009)

I'd say almost half  of the teachers in my school vote Republican.  And most of them send their kids to private school.  What's that tell ya?


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 17, 2009)

chanel said:


> I'd say almost half  of the teachers in my school vote Republican.  And most of them send their kids to private school.  What's that tell ya?


That they have more money than teachers in my area.
The part about private schools.
Half voting Republican probably means they are distributed about like society as a whole.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say "drilling" was bad, but it can become bad very fast.  By concentrating on "memorizing" you take away the "fun" in learning.  Kids learn to hate math because they aren't taught the joy of problem solving.
> ...



Hey, hey, hey-

Now you just leave Deanie-weenie alone!

Spanking him is my job, after all I selected him as the dumbest poster on USMB.

(And we try to encourage him, part of his therapy)


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2009)

chanel said:


> I'd say almost half  of the teachers in my school vote Republican.  And most of them send their kids to private school.  What's that tell ya?



Public school teachers in urban areas are far more likely than city residents in general to send their children to private schools, according to a new analysis of 2000 Census data by researchers led by Denis P. Doyle, who previously analyzed 1980 and 1990 Census data.

While just 12.2 percent of U.S. families send their children to private schools, that figure rises to 17.5 percent among urban families in general and to 21.5 percent among urban public school teachers, almost twice the national average.
Where Do Public School Teachers Send Their Kids to School? - by Alan Bonsteel, M.D. - School Reform News


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 18, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Here is the original quote to which you refer:
> " The document presented standards for grades K12, including algebra. The underlying goals of the standardsnever made clear to the general publicwere social, not academic."



Never made clear to the general public is what I take issue with.  That's always the start of a snow job.



> The article is by Sandra Stotsky.  Sandra Stotsky is a professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas and holds the 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality. Would you like to compare your credentials to hers?



Don't know her.  Do you usually make a practice of agreeing with folks with enough titles behind their name, or only when they seem to support your arguments?



> "Principles and Standards for School Mathematics has four major components. First, the Principles for school mathematics reflect basic perspectives on which educators should base decisions that affect school mathematics. These Principles establish a foundation for school mathematics programs by considering the broad issues of equity, curriculum, teaching, learning, assessment, and technology."
> Overview: Introduction



Nothing wrong with that.



> It has been purposely made difficult to quote, as
> " It would later be fiercely opposed by many parents and mathematics professionals, and rejected by many states and school districts who complained about replacing instruction in arithmetic with writing, coloring, counting, and inventing mathematics unrecognizable to any previous generation of mathematicians or educators. While the standards are available on the internet, *full access by the public is only available by an expensive purchase or subscription.*"
> Principles and Standards for School Mathematics | K12 Academics




Your quoted article owes it to the reader to actually list these questionable goals.  The above section reads like the start of a conspiracy theory.  The article in full is not much better.



> "University education departments began to tell future grammar school teachers that they should replace the traditional teacher-centered curriculum, aimed at producing educated citizens who embraced a common American ethic, with a new, child-centered approach that treats every pupils personal development as different and special.



Nothing wrong here.  Teachers have known for years that students learn, and respond, to different methods of teaching.  That's why a really good teacher is willing to change up their methods from time to time to reach a particular class.  I've had to do it even at the University level.



> The fault lies in your failure to see the bigger picture, in all of education, and the devolution of society.



That quote tells me pretty much all I need to know about you.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 18, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> One apparent goal is to make students dependent on calculators
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Eh.  You can hand a student a calculator and still not create "dependency".  Teachers that tell students to "Just do it on the calculator" are being lazy and need to get slapped down.  However, teachers that can use the calculator to enhance learning should be encourage.  I'd bet that on that point you and I can agree.

I know that I "discovered" the factorial operation and _e_ long before I was introduced to them in high school because I played around on a scientific calculator.  I was too poor to afford a graphing calculator, but when they were available at school I probably learned more about curves by just playing around with equations on the calculator than I ever learned prior to Calculus.

I freely admit, I'm not the normal situation.  Instead of teaching me football, basketball, or baseball my Dad taught me how to work Rubik's puzzles and math games.  The result was that I was a big nerd, but when faced with the advanced Mathematics courses I always started ahead.  For that, I'll always be grateful.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 18, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Kids learn to hate math because too many elementary education teachers spout nonsense like "Don't worry if it confuses you, math is hard." and "I was never any good at math."



By the way, this is something I agree with.  Enthusiasm makes a difference.  As does a working knowledge of the topic.  I think many innovations in mathematics instuction run into trouble due to a lack of familiarity with mathematics on the part of the teacher involved.


----------



## rdean (Nov 18, 2009)

chanel said:


> I'd say almost half  of the teachers in my school vote Republican.  And most of them send their kids to private school.  What's that tell ya?



That they shouldn't be teachers.  Thank you for proving my point.  Much appreciated.


----------



## rdean (Nov 18, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




Still waiting for that first "spank".  So far, you have missed every single time.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the original quote to which you refer:
> ...



I haven't seen anyone do this many bends and turns since the last time I played Twister.

It seems clear that you are not educable on this topic, fine, but your ability to ignore the 800-pound gorilla is astounding:
Since the 'progressives' took over education, , the scores of American students have plummeted.

You get full credit for effectuating 'Liberal Libretto' rule #6 b:

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a mistake, for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either fear-tactics, or red-baiting.
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with you falsely claimed or I exposed your lies of I destroyed your argument etc.

And "That quote tells me pretty much all I need to know about you..." Is that supposed to be some sort of insult? 
You must be pretty dense if you had any difficulty understanding what I am about: I never "hide my light under a bushel."


For anyone on the fence re: the deleterious effects of liberal-progressive-left-wing control of education, compare the following statement about the English of some 80 years ago, consider this: 

On Wednesday, June 6, 1928 the Oxford English Dictionary was completed. In The Meaning of Everything, Simon Winchester discusses the English of the time as follows:
	The English establishment of the day might be rightly derided at this remove as having been class-ridden and imperialist, bombastic and blimpish, racist and insouciant- but it was marked *undeniably also by a sweeping erudition and confidence, and it was peopled by men and women who felt they were able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning*.

It is my fondest wish that America could reattain that level of erudition.  It won't happen with liberals in charge of education.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2009)

rdean said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Charles Stucker said:
> ...



Wow!

What a zinger!
I can't wait for you to move all the way up to "I know you are but what am I?"


----------



## editec (Nov 18, 2009)

Anybody who thinks that America hasn't dummied down its schools?

I invite you to visit Children's Books Online; the Rosetta Project to see what sorts of books kids read in our grandfather's day.  When I test books for reading levels that were clearly used in elementary schools in the nation a century ago, _they test out at junior and sometimes senior high school level for reading levels._

What you will find is that pedagogs didn't _teach down to their kids_ they taught_ UP to the kids,_ thus forcing them to learn new vocabularly and how to read more difficult reading content.

Naturally, this makes it rather difficult for me to decide what reading level I should be putting these books into for today's audience

I have decided that I'll put books into the reading levels I think the old timers might have put them, and to hell with the modern dumbed down view of what kids can learn.

Basically now, I assume that the story line and subject matter are the keys to the reading levels, regardless of how they come out when I test them for reading levels using standardized testing systems

Somebody has to do it!

Our kids will become as ignorant as we allow them to become, folks.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 18, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> I haven't seen anyone do this many bends and turns since the last time I played Twister.
> 
> It seems clear that you are not educable on this topic, fine, but your ability to ignore the 800-pound gorilla is astounding:
> Since the 'progressives' took over education, , the scores of American students have plummeted.
> ...



A simple: "I don't have a way to refute the correct things you said" would have been sufficient, and measurably more honest.

Everyone knows there's a problem and I have acknowledged several issues that need resolution in this thread.  Your shortcoming is that you're attempting to fit all of the issues into a Conservative vs. Liberal mindset and will only rest when you're sure that these issues are somehow someone else's fault.

And yes, at this point I know what you're about.  Your quote from 1928 pretty much confirms what I thought about you.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 18, 2009)

editec said:


> Anybody who thinks that America hasn't dummied down its schools?
> 
> I invite you to visit Children's Books Online; the Rosetta Project to see what sorts of books kids read in our grandfather's day.
> 
> Our kids will become as ignorant as we allow them to become, folks.


I'm not experienced in teaching Reading, but your views on the topic seem plausible. They also follow the trend I have noticed in Math - new methods for teaching have resulted in poorer performance. 
The same trend occurs in other fields - history for example. I recently met a kid who was attending a local junior college; he had no clue who Winston Churchill was, same for Erwin Rommel. Despite him claiming to be a military history buff.

Teaching requires more than just money; teachers in Texas make far better wages relative to other careers than they did fifty years ago, yet the quality of instructors has slipped markedly. Teaching requires local authority and parents who support the schools. 

With local authority, school districts could demand better teachers; with current wages the only stumbling blocks are the NEA with its extreme form of "union protectionism" and the massive paperwork required by federal/state "mandates"
The Red Cross can teach a competent swimmer to teach swimming in a few weeks. The same principles used in teaching swimming can be used for teaching Mathematics. Thus it follows that you could teach anyone competent in a given field to teach in a few weeks. Instead a "teaching certificate" requiring  20+ hours of college credits in education and a semester of "student teaching" (which resembles teaching about like riding a bicycle resembles driving a car) and then "refresher" courses every summer or two. Those courses focus on jargon and slogans, not teaching. 
Multiculturalism is a primary offender. I had a multicultural expert once ask me my favorite black author. "Steve Barnes" - she had never heard of Barnes. He's a black science fiction writer, so the MC expert told me I had the wrong idea. A black author is one  who writes about the black experience. "Mark Twain" also failed her criteria for the obvious reason (I was being stubborn at that point). Then I asked her favorite Japanese author. She had none. Ditto for Chinese, Korean, Hindu, Persian, and Native American. She never understood the idiocy of calling it "multiculturalism" when it was about a single culture. 
Yes, this is a pet peeve of mine. 
Math is multicultural without having to add any extra PC lesson nonsense. Greece, Egypt, India, and China all added elements to modern Mathematics at a fundamental level. Modern Math is developed around the globe. Black, White, Brown, Yellow, none of that matter to math. But the PC police insist that you teach about particular mathematicians. 

Modern liberal though in the classroom has, in my experience, stressed a lot of different things, but never the need to push the students. That is the fundamental problem with the "liberal" approach - the lack of concern with success. that lack is apparent in their refusal to address the failure of their tenets as seen in the systemic decline in results following the adoption of their ideals. 

I use liberal here as it applies to education, not politics. Politically I oppose a lot of liberal ideals, but support some. In education I have yet to find a liberal ideal which worked as claimed.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 18, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> With local authority, school districts could demand better teachers; with current wages the only stumbling blocks are the NEA with its extreme form of "union protectionism" and the massive paperwork required by federal/state "mandates"



We could debate a lot other points in your post (in particular, I'm have issues with some of the "alternative" certification methods employed by certain states...), but one thing I think we can agree on is the need for greater local authority.  I think the NEA in particular has been too gung-ho at protecting bad teachers.

I don't think increased local authority alone will resolve all the problems todays schools face.  I know high school teachers (good ones mind you) that have to carry malpractice insurance because giving little Johnny a failing grade might result in a lawsuit.  How does that make sense?  There's also the issue that seniority is king in public schools and with that mentality comes several detrimental effects.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 18, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> We could debate a lot other points in your post (in particular, I'm have issues with some of the "alternative" certification methods employed by certain states...), but one thing I think we can agree on is the need for greater local authority.  I think the NEA in particular has been too gung-ho at protecting bad teachers.


I'm only familiar with Texas' alternative certification - there you start teaching and within two years are expected to complete the classroom curricula for certification. It's not really that different from regular certification since the courses required don't actually teach anything useful for teaching. The problem is people hate all the nonsensical paperwork foisted on them from above. One teacher I know who retired in the 90's observed she had more free time in the 60's while raising three kids and teaching than in the 90's because of the enormous increase in paperwork. 
Competence in the subject matter plus basic teaching techniques and some classroom management (like keep on your feet and move around the room to better observe the students) are the requirements for a good teacher. What the NEA and current certification push is a rigid adherence to their doctrine. A flawed doctrine.



Dr.Traveler said:


> I know high school teachers (good ones mind you) that have to carry malpractice insurance because giving little Johnny a failing grade might result in a lawsuit.  How does that make sense?  There's also the issue that seniority is king in public schools and with that mentality comes several detrimental effects.


Yes, I agree we have to get rid of lawyers who will do anything for a buck. They are the cause of the "Teacher malpractice" issue. 
The same teacher I mentioned above had experience as an engineer, programming early computers to solve problems, and after several years teaching Math and Computer classes in one district had moved to another. That district was just then starting their computer course, and she went when offered a chance to set their curriculum. A Coach decided he wanted such a fun class and she was forced to take extra shifts of pre-algebra while the coach played on the computers. All because the coach has seniority (actually in Texas football is like a religion, so being a coach probably helped too)

A telling point in mathematics is that the failure of elementary teachers to instill any arithmetic skill in students makes the job of high school teachers nigh impossible. If it is a case of elementary education majors knowing too little math then perhaps the certification process should teach more math with rigorous standards (none of the calculator bull for example, unless someone insists a calculator class is needed, and then only in that class)


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 18, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> A telling point in mathematics is that the failure of elementary teachers to instill any arithmetic skill in students makes the job of high school teachers nigh impossible.



I think we're closer in agreement than it might appear.  I want to be clear:  I am not against drilling in arithmetic.  I do think its important.  I would also like to see some sort of "intuition" instilled into the computation so that later on we can increase success in courses that resist a simpler "drill and kill" approach.

For example:  I have students that sit down to work a compound interest problem.  If asked to invest $1000 at 1.2% for 5 years, they give back answers like $1,000,0000 or sometimes answers like $500.

Even the best students will make a numerical mistake, so the above answer can't be simply written off as a lack of arithmetic skill (though that may be an issue).  What is disturbing to me is that _the student lacks any kind of intuition that the above answers could be wrong._  I routinely tell my college students that there is room for common sense in mathematics, but by this point they are so hardwired to stop thinking and work that they simply don't believe me.  That's an issue and that needs to be addressed at some point.

I also agree there are a great deal of non-mathematical issues in public education too.  Resolving those is a whole other issue.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 18, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> For example:  I have students that sit down to work a compound interest problem.  If asked to invest $1000 at 1.2% for 5 years, they give back answers like $1,000,0000 or sometimes answers like $500.


Because they don't realize the answer (in this case) is very close to the simple interest answer of $1060. As you say, they have not spent enough time developing their mathematical skills. Another part of the problem you see is an indifference to correct answers. 



Dr.Traveler said:


> I also agree there are a great deal of non-mathematical issues in public education too.  Resolving those is a whole other issue.


I would argue that the base issues for all subjectss are
1 Teachers need to know the subjects they teach
2 Teachers must know how to present material in a comprehensive understandable way
3 Classroom discipline must be maintained
4 Standards must be enforced

Just those four things, but they require getting the NEA and federal government out of the game and forcing parents to take control of their own children. Three tasks which are each Sisyphean in scope.


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 19, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> We use a curriculum pretty much as you outline it, and, of course, don't allow calculators.



Slide rule, abacus, or fingers?

PC,  any comments here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/95300-serious-conspiracy-theorist-question.html


Charles Stucker, Dr.Traveler, interesting discussion.  My wife maintains strict order and is eventually liked ,even loved, by her students. Math scores are excellent, calculator is OK, and she has a no excuse policy. And Several best teacher awards. But order is key and work on time essential. Too much extracurricular activity is an issue too, esp sports.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > We use a curriculum pretty much as you outline it, and, of course, don't allow calculators.
> ...



1. None of the above. My 5th grader learned her multiplication tables, I believe it was last year.

2. I don't understand what you are asking me to comment on (sorry to end the sentence with a preposition). If it is to ascertain my political perspectives, certainly I have never hidden where I stand.  You know full well.

3. I, too, would be proud of your wife, and her accomplishments. But her excellent performance is outside the scope of this discussion as a dispositive response.

It is the overall performance of American children vis-s-vis the performance of children of other nations, specifically those who don't subscribe to 'progressive' education.

I have often noted that I believe that data should inform policy, and I suspect that the excellent math teacher in  your family would agree with that formulation.

From the OP article: progressive institutes  "the employment of trendy, though empirically unsupported, pedagogical and organizational methods that essentially dumb down math content. Math educators proclaimed a brand-new objective&#8212;conveniently indefinable and immeasurable&#8212;called &#8220;deep conceptual understanding.&#8221;

And 'progressives"insisting instead on the value of student-developed algorithms&#8212;this despite research by cognitive psychologists strongly supporting a curriculum that simultaneously develops conceptual understanding, computational fluency with standard algorithms, and problem-solving skills as the best way to prepare students for algebra

And "Teacher-directed learning goes out the window, despite its demonstrated benefits for students with learning problems..."


"The panel found little if any credible evidence supporting the teaching philosophy and practices that math educators have promoted in their ed-school courses and embedded in textbooks for almost two decades. Despite the proven effectiveness of these strategies [recommended by the Paned], many math educators view most of them with disdain&#8212;most likely because they entail more traditional, structured teaching."

Did your wife have an opinion on the OP?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 19, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> Too much extracurricular activity is an issue too, esp sports.



Don't get me started on the disproportionate amount of time/money wasted on sports at all levels of education.  I'm of the opinion that if a sports program can not pay for itself out of ticket revenue or alumni donation, that program should be abolished.  Not one cent of tax payer or tuition dollars should go to fund extra-curriculars that distract and detract from the classroom.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 19, 2009)

Since this thread has clearly been derailed several times, by both the OP and others, I'd like to take a closer look at this...



PoliticalChic said:


> Let's say that your mother has Alzheimer's and breaks her hip. Let's say that all the bioethicists on the hospital ethics committee have degrees in behavioral economics, psychology, decision theory or sociology. Would you find that reassuring? When tough decisions have to be made about her future, would you expect them to treat your mother as a unique human being with inalienable dignity? Probably not. Probably the thought would cross your mind that these guys may know a lot about quality-adjusted life years, but not a lot about how precious a human life is. In fact, the thought might cross your mind that this looks more like a death panel than an ethics committee.


 
As a physician, the above scenario is not a rare reality.  So I ask you, what should be done if the above lady (say she is 90s) with Alzheimers (say it is severe enough that she is in bed or a wheelchair most of the time) was to fracture her hip.

What do YOU think should be done?  Based on your answers, we will continue the discussion.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 19, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> ...Math educators proclaimed a brand-new objectiveconveniently indefinable and immeasurablecalled *deep conceptual understanding.*
> ...this despite research by cognitive psychologists strongly supporting a curriculum that simultaneously *develops conceptual understanding*, computational fluency with standard algorithms, and problem-solving skills as the best way to prepare students for algebra



Ummm...don't look now but your article contradticts itself.  How is deep conceptual understanding "indefinable and immesaurable" when its put foward as an objective when researchers arguing in support of an algorithmic approach can provide research saying their way "develops conceptual understanding".

Fostering conceptual understanding of the material absolutely should be a goal.  Arithmetic mistakes will happen no matter how much drilling you do.  Conceptual understanding increases the chance that a ridiculous answer can be recognized and discarded, while at the same time fostering reasoning skills sorely missing when a student moves on to advanced mathematics.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > ...Math educators proclaimed a brand-new objectiveconveniently indefinable and immeasurablecalled *deep conceptual understanding.*
> ...



I've noticed that a dead give-away to a smug, sneering, pedantic post is when one begins with "Ummm..."

And, another perception that I have had, all of those who use "dr." in their avatar are sorely in need of one.

But enough chit-chat.

This has been quite a long thread, and everyone has expressed his/her viewpoint.


But-  (not 'ummm') the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, or in this case, in the argument, is the  fact that scores have fallen precipitously since liberals, 'progressives,' have taken over the school system.

"Americans have been dissatisfied with their public schools for several decades. There are
many reasons for this. It is well known, for instance, that the achievement of American students,
when compared with that of students from other industrialized nations, is consistently near the
bottom (166-167).1 Employers complain that many high school graduates lack even the most
basic skills in reading, writing and mathematics. Colleges and universities must offer remedial
work for large numbers of incoming students before they are prepared to do college level work."
http://www.macalester.edu/~reedy/h2.pdf


So, (not 'ummm") aside from the minutiae, how do we account for the seemingly related factors of the installation of progressive theory, and falling grades?

Coincidence? Artifact of statistics?

How many decades are necessary before we scrap these new and trendy theories, and return to those that have actually shown results?

 I'd agree to mitigate some of the criticism of progressive education, by stipulating that the progressive direction in society is even more to blame.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 19, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



So yet again, you have no actual response to the point I brought up?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



So yet again, you have no actual response to the larger point I brought up!


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 19, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> So yet again, you have no actual response to the larger point I brought up!



I've addressed it here, here, and here, as well as addressing other posters in this thread about some of the issues that have come up.  In case you missed it, a few of us have had a constructive dialogue on the issues in school.

So far, all you've added is reposting your op in various forms as well as tired Liberal vs. Conservative talking points.  At this point it is very clear you are not actually interested in the problem or a solution, but in assigning blame to "progressives."

When you are interested in actually debating the issues and attempting to address them, come on back.  I gather from your posts so far that you're either a teacher, or are posing as one.  Maybe you have something constructive to add.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > So yet again, you have no actual response to the larger point I brought up!
> ...



I went  back and checked your "I've addressed it here, here, and here," and find that you have not addressed the central point of this thread, generally expressed as "Why does anyone, and the educational establishment in particular, continue to subscribe to non-teaching teaching methods?"

And, pointedly, why would a seemingly intelligent poster defend same.

Since it seems that you have honestly attempted to answer this- albeit unsuccessfully, I am going to answer it for you.

Progressive education, demonstrably ineffective, in the words of Professor J. Reedy, "derives from romanticism and
romanticism is more of a religion than a philosophy. It is, in fact, a secular religion with
its own creed, sacred scripture, heroes and saints, rites and rituals. Romantics transferred
God or what is divine from the transcendent realm into nature. Progressive
education is a secular religion deriving from romanticism, and as a form of religion it
cannot be refuted with empirical data nor disproved with rational arguments."

If we agree on that, it is clear why I cannot convince you: religion is based on faith, not data.

Therefore the discussion of pedagogy cannot stray far from a discussion of Liberal vs. Conservative political philosophy.

I will not change this thread into one of political philosophy, threads I thououghly enjoy, other than to repeat that Conservatives believe that data informs policy.

Especially in educational methodology.

The data is clear: traditional methods work, progressive do not.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 19, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> I went  back and checked your "I've addressed it here, here, and here," and find that you have not addressed the central point of this thread, generally expressed as "Why does anyone, and the educational establishment in particular, continue to subscribe to non-teaching teaching methods?"



I reject your definition.  In particular, I reject the notion that attempting to educate a young mind about the origin of the underlying mechanism of an algorithm is futile or "not teaching."

I do not think that drilling Arithmetic should be eliminated, in fact, I too am not happy about the lack of basic mathematical proficiency.  I do not think that the attempt to educate students about the deeper truths of Mathematics is the origin of this shortfall.  If anything, there are numerous root causes for the educational failing we have seen, not entirely limited to but including the growing lack of parental involvement, the lack of basic understanding of subjective matter among teachers, and the mindset among teacher unions that insists on defending bad teachers.



> And, pointedly, why would a seemingly intelligent poster defend same.



I defend it because the underlying goal is a good one, namely:  Increase interest and proficiency in mathematics.  I have stated in this thread repeatedly that an algorithmic knowledge of Arithmetic will not be sufficient as students reach advanced mathematics courses, specifically Integral Calculus and beyond.  A thorough knowledge of arithmetic will help avoid arithmetic errors, but it will not help a student solve a trigonometric substitution problem if the student lacks a basic intuition in mathematics.  It will not help a student recognize an (inevitable) arithmetic error when working a story problem.  It will not help a student make a reasoned choice based on mathematical evidence.

At some point, we need to address the complete lack of mathematical intuition that is evident among students entering the college level mathematics courses.  I believe strongly that encouraging mathematical exploration and a familiarity with the underlying principles and logic could address this.

Alone, this will not fix the many issues in the current educational environment.  Those issues transcend mathematics, just as the transcend Conservative vs. Liberal viewpoints.  Attempting to distill them to a simple "Red vs. Blue" debate is dishonest, and will not actually lead to a solution.

All of these things I've said here, I have said elsewhere in the thread.


----------



## Polk (Nov 19, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > With local authority, school districts could demand better teachers; with current wages the only stumbling blocks are the NEA with its extreme form of "union protectionism" and the massive paperwork required by federal/state "mandates"
> ...



I disagree that more local control is the answer. If anything, a big part of the problem is too much local control. Sure, there are many federal "requirements", but they're all written in such a way that no one really has to abide by them.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I went  back and checked your "I've addressed it here, here, and here," and find that you have not addressed the central point of this thread, generally expressed as "Why does anyone, and the educational establishment in particular, continue to subscribe to non-teaching teaching methods?"
> ...



Why do you keep tap-dancing around the data vs. faith argument. 

Since traditional, conservative, time-honored methods result in higher achievement, no matter the test, why are you not on board?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 19, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Why do you keep tap-dancing around the data vs. faith argument.
> 
> Since traditional, conservative, time-honored methods result in higher achievement, no matter the test, why are you not on board?



Simply put, because the attempts to test achievement aren't taking into account success in later advanced mathematics courses.

It is understandable that no one is measuring this, as this would require tracking a large number of students through 10+ years of education with a chance that a large number of your data set might not even take a higher level mathematics course.

However, what I have seen, what colleagues have seen, and what is discussed frequently over coffee at AMS, MAA, and ICTCM meetings is the lack of mathematical intuition we see in entering freshmen, and how to combat this problem.

At the college level, we have some things we're trying.  Specifically programs like Geogebra offer free manipulatives to help guide the development of intuition.  Programs such as Maple and Mathlab have proven useful in creating exploratory lab exercises, akin to what is done in college level Chemistry and Biology.  Undergraduate research programs are heavily funded by well spent grant money and the AMS and MAA offer money and opportunities for undergraduates willing to work on involved mathematical problems a chance to shine.

But it would be nice to see an attempt to instill mathematical intuition early on.  I do not want to see exploration replace drilling in Arithmetic, as trading Arithmetical knowledge for mathematical intuition will probably not help 90% of the population.  However, where possible, I think it is worthwhile to point out the mindset and underlying structure of the algorithms and the numbers used on a daily basis.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 19, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You're confused PC...you forward a dubious opinion as manifest and when no one is willing to swallow your right wing bluster; you are indignant...the ONLY "data" you supplied we all agree on: America is falling behind the rest of the world in math and education...the cause is not a simple ideological monolith that needs to be removed.

If it could be traced to a singular in-classroom cause, it would be the right's belief that testing, threats and punishment will address the problems...

In the last 20+ years we've witnessed a united and focused dismantling of the public infrastructure that started with Reagan...we are now witnessing the consummation...

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
*William E. Gladstone*


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 20, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Did your wife have an opinion on the OP?



Asking serious teachers questions that stem from ideology perspectives is like an evolutionary psychologist asking boys at play why they roughhouse. But I did raise the question during her braindead time watching 'Fastforeward,' and she told me to more or less go away.

Coincidentally I was in her classroom yesterday, she teaches middle school, and she pointed out a few of the very bright students and it occurred to me these students will have no trouble in life, or should I say maybe they still will, but they are gifted and learning is not the issue. 

Back to calculators, she thinks they should be introduced early, but used in class after the fundamentals sink in, around seventh grade. 

I sent your query out as we have lots of teachers in the family at all levels, but if you want a single word answer which several teachers have given me, 'LAZY.'

Why, hmm, maybe it the American way today, play sports make millions. Sing well, make millions. Teach, make 35K. Some groups still do well. Why? Values maybe. In Philly today we have Charter Schools that only take the good students, where will this lead us I wonder. Few Americans face the issues of class and affluence. I'll let you know the replies.

Check out Cliff and others on learning. See other Ted videos.
http://www.ted.com/talks/clifford_stoll_on_everything.html


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 20, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> I reject your definition.  In particular, I reject the notion that attempting to educate a young mind about the origin of the underlying mechanism of an algorithm is futile or "not teaching."
> 
> I do not think that the attempt to educate students about the deeper truths of Mathematics is the origin of this shortfall.



Which teacher is teaching this material and what sort of class do they have?
A brilliant teacher with a  class of 6 year old children which includes a couple of bright students, and has the troublemakers, crack babies and other difficult cases removed, might be able to do what you suggest. If they had full control of the classroom without too much oversight. 
But those conditions do not apply.
In particular, we don't have enough brilliant teachers. 
I don't think we ever could. 

Until we have a large number of superior educators we cannot allow more generations to be lost because we aspire to something unobtainable. I've read about a kid from China who could speak several languages and do calculus by age 7  or so. That child was a prodigy who was given a specific curricula. 

Education faces a particular dilemma; if all the best and brightest go into education, who is left to make the advances? If you have average education majors, they cannot manage the same success as the best and brightest. 
To resolve the dilemma I suggest we should stick with a curriculum understandable and teachable by the typical educator - drill on the basics through 4th grade or so, and start teaching more advanced conceptual mathematics once we have assured that students do understand those basics.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 20, 2009)

Polk said:


> I disagree that more local control is the answer. If anything, a big part of the problem is too much local control. Sure, there are many federal "requirements", but they're all written in such a way that no one really has to abide by them.



Federal mandates create enormous amounts of paperwork. They typically do nothing constructive. I only included Typically on the off chance that someone has an example of a good federal mandate.  

Local control creates the opportunity to see different philosophies put to the test. Those districts which choose the best methodology will get the best results. Other districts will notice and follow suit for fear of losing populace as all the affluent people with children flock to those districts. 
A kind of social evolution mechanism to find the demonstrably best method of teaching.


----------



## Polk (Nov 20, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree that more local control is the answer. If anything, a big part of the problem is too much local control. Sure, there are many federal "requirements", but they're all written in such a way that no one really has to abide by them.
> ...



I would agree they don't do anything constructive currently, but that's because the so-called "federal" mandates are really a series of vague guidelines which it's left up to the states to report. The result: the states cook the books to preserve their funding.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Did your wife have an opinion on the OP?
> ...



How does 'lazy' respond to the OP?

BTW, in NYC senior teachers make over 100k, unrelated to student learning.

According to the Fordham Foundation, between 2003 and 2005, 20 states have seen dramatic improvement in the proficiency rates on state exams that determine whether states meet federal guidelines for adequate yearly progress. But children in these same states have not posted similar gains on the federally mandated National Assessment of Educational Progress, leading some experts to declare that NCLB has started a race to the bottom in terms of lower state standards.
Here, from the New York City Teachers newspaper is the spin to explain why kids seem to be improving, on state exams, but when exposed to the NAEP, show where they really stand:

Teachers have been telling the UFT that there is too much emphasis on teaching to the state standards as measured by state tests. Now, the results of the national math tests this year support their claims. 
Students in New York State showed no real progress on these tests this year despite big gains on statewide exams.
Flat scores on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in math stood in stark contrast to large gains on the state test, where an unprecedented number of students have met state standards over the last two years.
Education experts and commentators questioned whether schools have become so focused on teaching to the specifics of state tests that they have sacrificed broader and more challenging curriculums. Others wondered if state tests have misled educators about how much students actually know.
National tests show no progress in math - United Federation of Teachers

So, according to the United Federation of Teachers, it is not that the system is faulty, not teaching enough, but rather that teachers are doing too good a job at teaching to the [State] test.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 20, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> So, according to the United Federation of Teachers, it is not that the system is faulty, not teaching enough, but rather that teachers are doing too good a job at teaching to the [State] test.



Teaching to  a standardized test is always a bad idea.
Standardized tests are invariably scantron multiple choice tests. 
Multiple choice tests fail because they give you the answer.
Multiple choice tests fail because they succumb to strategies to eliminate obviously wrong answers followed by a guess.
Multiple choice tests fail because they do not measure true knowledge or proficiency.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > So, according to the United Federation of Teachers, it is not that the system is faulty, not teaching enough, but rather that teachers are doing too good a job at teaching to the [State] test.
> ...



Not true.

1. If the standardized test does not measure what you wish it to measure, the problem is with the test.  Revamp.

2. "...invariably scantron multiple choice tests.'  Also untrue.
NYState exams in HS, called Regents Exams are largely hand marked and subjective. Essay tests.

3. Nothing wrong with teaching how to address questions. Especially if that is the kind of test they will face in international competitions.

4. "Multiple choice tests fail because they do not measure true knowledge or proficiency."

Largely untrue; you have succumbed to a tenet of progressive education, i.e. a rejection of subject matter. 

In true education, there will be a body of knowledge and factual material to be handed down and mastered by students.

Among progressives the emphasis is on process, and there is disparagement
of mere facts. One could takes courses in How to Think Like a Scientist and then be considered a scientist without having to study chemistry or biology or physics. Or one could become an expert in problem solving and offer to help the public with their legal problems without having studied law. The fact is that knowledge is needed even to understand the problems themselves, whatever the field.

Multiple choice tests have a place in the traditional education universe!
Objective tests provide incentives for both students and teachers, that tests provide ways to monitor progress and remedy deficiencies, and ways to evaluate students,
teachers and schools. 

And grading non-standardized tests tends to be subjective and therefore unfair. Abolishing tests and grades completely would be unfair to those who work harder and/or are more intelligent.

Testing, ranking and competition are unavoidable aspects of education
and life. as E. D. Hirsch says, one can understand that
progressives would want to bash tests when their methods consistently fail to improve
test scores.

Let us focus on the falling scores, and knowledge, of those taught by progressive methods, and watch for terms such as 'social justice' when used by educrats. 

And then explain why traditional methods are so much more successful, and question why we no longer use them.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 20, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> 2. "...invariably scantron multiple choice tests.'  Also untrue.
> NYState exams in HS, called Regents Exams are largely hand marked and subjective. Essay tests.
> 
> 3. Nothing wrong with teaching how to address questions. Especially if that is the kind of test they will face in international competitions.
> ...



I was not familiar with the NY tests, sorry about that.
You may be misunderstanding my post's intent, so I apologize for being unclear.
My experience in Texas with standardized State tests has been that teachers are forced to teach strategies which ONLY address taking the standardized (multiple choice) test. Nothing else. 
I should qualify the Multiple Choice part - English now has an essay portion, but I know only of its existence, not its contents.  
Students who know nothing about math can pass the tests because they are primed to take the test, not because they know anything about math. 

You are right, the tests need to be restructured. Otherwise, as they currently exist, they are detrimental to teaching math and its applications to real problems. 

Competition is definitely needed. Students who do well should be praised, those who fail should be held back. 

I hope I was clearer this time.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 2. "...invariably scantron multiple choice tests.'  Also untrue.
> ...



Thanks.

It appears that the main posters on this thread have their expertise in teaching mathematics.

I've tried to broaden the discussion to include the question of progressive vs. traditional education, but, alas, it seems that everyone wants to remain in their own baileywick.

But, it's been fun.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 20, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



And your _bailiwick_ is starting a thread that was never about education...merely pretext for your real agenda...pinning Marxism to the left nefariously through Paulo Freire...


----------



## random3434 (Nov 21, 2009)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Charles Stucker said:
> ...



Ah, the BoringFriendlessGuy is back.

But, then again, where else could he go?

I suspect that there may be a reason Friendless returns to a thread on which he as been stomped, over and over, time and time again: hes Friendless.

Any response, no matter how dispositive, no matter how insulting to his argument, his intellect, or his manhood, serves as inducement for Friendless to post a long, repetitive, and often boring response, frequently baited with logical errors, hoping to coax further repartee, and all because- you guessed it: he is lonely.

BoringFriendlessGuy has no compunction about hijacking a thread, or posting huge multicolored font, charts, and graphs that have no bearing on the subject of the thread, or even ending a thread by long, boring pedantry, other than having killed the golden goose of a place to postbut then hes not that smart.

Borrowing from Sherlock Holmes, I would venture a guess that BoringFriendlessGuy might suffer from a speech impediment, which relegates any badinage to cyberspace.

Or- possibly, folks in his locale are more easily able to see him coming, and beat a hasty retreat, than posters on the message board, and so we are the beneficiaries of his argufying ambush!

Again and again he returns to the source of his  psychological nourishment, similar to the behavior of a hyena or other scavenger, seeing any opportunity to post as though another scrap of polemical meat.

If the post does not speak for itself, I for one find him as welcome as emphysema at a glass-blowers convention.

Although I expect to be disappointed, lets hope that this missive serves as our adieu, BoringFriendlessGuy.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2009)

Echo Zulu said:


> View attachment 8772



Salute to American education system:


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 21, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Well PC, I wouldn't show your post to anyone you hope to gain friendship with...

You level descriptions of "the behavior of a hyena or other scavenger", then you exhibit it.

"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us." 
*Thomas Jefferson *


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



See, what'd I tell ya:

"Again and again he returns to the source of his psychological nourishment, similar to the behavior of a hyena or other scavenger, seeing any opportunity to post as though another scrap of polemical meat."


Not a healthcare professional, I can't decide whether it is a neurosis or a psychosis.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 21, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Here's an idea...why don't you show my behavior "similar to the behavior of a hyena or other scavenger"...and then it will be my turn...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 Look up perseverate in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. 

Perseveration is the uncontrollable repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder. If an issue has been fully explored and discussed to a point of resolution it is *not uncommon for something to trigger the re-investigation of the matter. This can happen at any time during a conversation. This is particularly true with those who have had traumatic brain injuries. *Those with Asperger syndrome may display a form of perseveration in that they focus on one or a number of narrow interests. This phenomenon can also occur in people with schizophrenia.

Several researchers have tried to connect perseveration with a lack of inhibition; however, this connection could not be found, or was small.[1][2]


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 21, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





PoliticalChic said:


> 5.	Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for them to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.




I guess that would make you a .......................................liberal


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Didn't you understand this: "Although I expect to be disappointed, lets hope that this missive serves as our adieu, BoringFriendlessGuy."

'Hints' are wasted on you.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 21, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I completely understand...you want out before you are embarrassed and exposed...again... 


In skating over thin ice our safety is in our speed.
*Ralph Waldo Emerson*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 21, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I didn't know I was keeping you here...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Ah, the BoringFriendlessGuy is back.

But, then again, where else could he go?

I suspect that there may be a reason Friendless returns to a thread on which he as been stomped, over and over, time and time again: hes Friendless.

Any response, no matter how dispositive, no matter how insulting to his argument, his intellect, or his manhood, serves as inducement for Friendless to post a long, repetitive, and often boring response, frequently baited with logical errors, hoping to coax further repartee, and all because- you guessed it: he is lonely.

BoringFriendlessGuy has no compunction about hijacking a thread, or posting huge multicolored font, charts, and graphs that have no bearing on the subject of the thread, or even ending a thread by long, boring pedantry, other than having killed the golden goose of a place to postbut then hes not that smart.

Borrowing from Sherlock Holmes, I would venture a guess that BoringFriendlessGuy might suffer from a speech impediment, which relegates any badinage to cyberspace.

Or- possibly, folks in his locale are more easily able to see him coming, and beat a hasty retreat, than posters on the message board, and so we are the beneficiaries of his argufying ambush!

Again and again he returns to the source of his  psychological nourishment, similar to the behavior of a hyena or other scavenger, seeing any opportunity to post as though another scrap of polemical meat.

If the post does not speak for itself, I for one find him as welcome as emphysema at a glass-blowers convention.

Although I expect to be disappointed, lets hope that this missive serves as our adieu, BoringFriendlessGuy.


----------



## Bfgrn (Nov 22, 2009)

The Education-Crime Connection








There is a clear, reverse relationship between education--in particular, staying in school--and crime.

Among, blacks that drop out of school almost 50% will be convicted of a crime and sent to prison. (The Week, 9/12/2003).

Among other races the rate is lower, but still one in every 37 of these male adults is a convicted criminal.race reading proficiency

The with more than two-million citizens in prison, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the industrialized world.

But, instead of bolstering our education system, we are reducing funding and spending more and more on prisons. The Chicago Sun-Times said in an editorial on this topic, we are witnessing an "enormous social failure."

As if education wasn't important enough to our nation's future and ability to compete in the world, we seem to be ignoring the fact that in terms of dollars and "sense" we are spending millions on putting more and more people in prison while neglecting the very thing that could alleviate the problem.

The cost of crime goes far beyond the millions we're spending on prisons. When you add the costs of police, ER services, courts, insurance, loss of property and human lives, the cost becomes truly incalculable.

To balance budgets we are also cutting drug education programs. And it's drug related crime that's earning even low-level dealers Draconian 10 and 20 year prison sentences.

All issues of human compassion and citizen welfare aside, when you stand back and look at this issues from an economic standpoint, the education solution simply makes sense.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 23, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. If the standardized test does not measure what you wish it to measure, the problem is with the test.  Revamp.



Easier said than done, but ok.  



> 2. "...invariably scantron multiple choice tests.'  Also untrue.
> NYState exams in HS, called Regents Exams are largely hand marked and subjective. Essay tests.



Hand graded examinations are costly, take time to grade, and are vulnerable to bias on the part of the grader.  

I'm all for hand grading, but in order to eliminate bias you'll need each test graded by multiple graders, with a secure blind process, and with enough time to do the job right.  All of that is fine if you're willing to spend the money to do this correctly.  The problem is that schools are facing rising classroom sizes and shrinking budgets.  Where the money to do this will come from is a major issue.



> 3. Nothing wrong with teaching how to address questions. Especially if that is the kind of test they will face in international competitions.



"Teaching to the test" is the reason that education is producing such dismal results as is.  If a student only knows how to apply knowledge in a few specific cases, then they are failing to develop reasoning skills and only learning indoctrination.  I thought Conservatives valued reasoning over indoctrination?



> 4. "Multiple choice tests fail because they do not measure true knowledge or proficiency."
> 
> Largely untrue; you have succumbed to a tenet of progressive education, i.e. a rejection of subject matter.



Strategies for Multiple Choice Tests


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 23, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Thanks.
> 
> It appears that the main posters on this thread have their expertise in teaching mathematics.
> 
> ...



Your OP is an attack on attempts to update mathematics curriculum.  Of course it attracted those of us interested in mathematics, and of course they discussed mathematics.  That should not be surprising.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 23, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Your OP is an attack on attempts to update mathematics curriculum.  Of course it attracted those of us interested in mathematics, and of course they discussed mathematics.  That should not be surprising.


I felt it was more an attack on "change for the sake of change" but we've been over that. I thanked you for (hopefully) getting this back on the topic of education and off the hostility between posters seen on the last couple of pages. 
If liberalism was bout carefully examining the effectiveness of new ideas I could support it more. Unfortunately too many liberals look at an idea and rate it like fashion; the newer and flashier the better. 
If we were to consider the space consisting of all education methods feasible, and rate those methods on their success in a general way, I believe we would find that the education methods which evolved over the centuries and culminated in the 19th/early 20th century methods are very good methods. Yes there are certain to exist other methodologies which might create better results, but the problem arises in identifying those methods. I've watched PhD candidates propose all sorts of "new" methods and invariably the "best" methods rely on one thing - the forceful charismatic personality of the PhD candidate. 
What this suggests to me is that classes in personal mental discipline and oratory/debate may be more beneficial than some of the tripe taught to teachers. Imagine a teacher who is able to control a class of students without interruption for an entire lesson. That would add a lot to any curricula, but the models taught to teachers tend to emphasize Political correctness, "new methods" and "right thinking" not actually teaching the subject and expecting a high level of performance from students.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. If the standardized test does not measure what you wish it to measure, the problem is with the test.  Revamp.
> ...



I can see that you are not able to digest the larger picture, and how the leftward slant in society has influence you, and resulted in the depredation of education.

For others reading these posts, imagine that DrT was a carpenter, and had been told by his mentors that using blunt nails without sharp points was the correct way to build, and throughout his career he just kept thinking "I've just got to hit them harder."

Education must find a way to eliminate such 'carpenters,' and find folks who will use methods that have been shown to work.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Your OP is an attack on attempts to update mathematics curriculum.  Of course it attracted those of us interested in mathematics, and of course they discussed mathematics.  That should not be surprising.
> ...





"...and rate those methods on their success in a general way, I believe we would find that the education methods which evolved over the centuries and culminated in the 19th/early 20th century methods are very good methods. "

Well put.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 23, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> I can see that you are not able to digest the larger picture, and how the leftward slant in society has influence you, and resulted in the depredation of education.
> 
> For others reading these posts, imagine that DrT was a carpenter, and had been told by his mentors that using blunt nails without sharp points was the correct way to build, and throughout his career he just kept thinking "I've just got to hit them harder."
> 
> Education must find a way to eliminate such 'carpenters,' and find folks who will use methods that have been shown to work.



Never a substantive response.  Notice the methodology of PoliticalChic.  Despite a refutation point by point, she is unable to actually refute such points and is forced, as evidenced by her responses to myself and others in this thread, to resort to name calling and dismissive outbursts of smug superiority.

PoliticalChic, you do more damage to your own positions than I could ever do.  I salute you.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 23, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Yes there are certain to exist other methodologies which might create better results, but the problem arises in identifying those methods. I've watched PhD candidates propose all sorts of "new" methods and invariably the "best" methods rely on one thing - the forceful charismatic personality of the PhD candidate.



That is a problem.  Even if you come up with a very good methodology, dissemenating it out to the teaching population in an effective manner is tough, and teaching a topic or methodology is doomed to failure unless the teacher is throughly versed in exactly how things work.

I've actually seen a similar thing play out involving computerized homework.  I've seen various schools implement computerized homework, and it is beginning to appear that the factor that most determines success is the enthusiasm and familiarity of the teacher with the program.  We've implemented two seperate homework programs.  One has increased success rates by 20% when coupled with other changes (call is program A) in the course, the other has landed with a resounding thud (call it program B).  Placed side by side, Program B seems like it should have been the clear winner.  Students are provided with more help, more resources, and a cleaner easier to use interface.  C'est la vie.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I can see that you are not able to digest the larger picture, and how the leftward slant in society has influence you, and resulted in the depredation of education.
> ...



Silly word play.

What remains is that you are unable to comprehend the big picture, and the deleterious effects of liberalism.

Happily, President Obama is managing to perform the same emasculation of liberalism as President Wilson did to progressivism.

My hope is that the same distruction extends to liberal influence in pedagogy.

Nor do I expect you to understand any of the above.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 24, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Nor do I expect you to understand any of the above.



Let me know when you start actually addressing the issues instead of babbling.  At that point, you might be worth the effort to understand.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 24, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Nor do I expect you to understand any of the above.
> ...



My friend, it seems that you end all of your posts in answer to mine with something along the line of the far too optimistic There, Ive dispensed with you.

No, you havent.

While you may be well meaning, and a passable math instructor, you and those of your persuasion remain enemies of enlightenment.

The question at the core of each of our jousts is why continue with progressive pedagogy when more traditional methods regularly produce better results.?

Time and again, liberal, socialist, communist theorists, when faced with the same question, respond with one of the following:
a) its different this time
b) it wasnt tried long enough
c) not enough money was dedicated to the program
d) this has nothing to do with political philosophy.

The latter excuse would be your choice.

No matter what ideas you cling to, you are not the ally of education.

As for "Let me know..." I should aprise you of the fact that my posts use yours simply as a vehicle to allow thinking members of the board to consider a major battle in pedagogy. 

I have no view that you can be convinced, as you have not the background, perspective nor willingness to consider the facts.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Nov 24, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Thanks for giving me the opportunity.



You're welcome.  Given the choice I'd let you talk ad nauseum.  The longer you talk, the more obvious the shortcomings in your reasoning become.  Please, keep talking.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 24, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for giving me the opportunity.
> ...



I've made my points clearly and with documentation.

You are simply not equipped to understand them.

I can explain them to you, I just can't comprehend them for you.


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 25, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> How does 'lazy' respond to the OP?
> 
> BTW, in NYC senior teachers make over 100k, unrelated to student learning.
> 
> ...



'Lazy' was the first answer, "Parents" is the primary answer. That has come from several teachers, up to HS level and including private schools that cost lots. But I admit they are probably a bit biased and so annoyed by parents today, who claim Joanie can do no wrong, parents is an easy answer for them.

So why? Allow me to extrapolate: Consider the Couric interview with Palin, if Palin were our child and expected to know some of the things asked or at least to answer intelligently, would we blame Couric for the stupid answers. The right does. And that is what teachers in America face today. They face an attitude that the brat can do no wrong or stupidity can be rationalized as not stupidity. If a teacher told my parents I did wrong in school my father would have handled it very simply. Today the parent would argue with the teacher and claim they expect too much.

But this only gets at part of the answers I received. TV, Video games, sports, no respect for adults, lack of reading, no consideration for their professionalism, were also mentioned. But why do these things make them dumber - because being dumb is a consequence of all of the above. Dumb has become an American value, see only our last president. 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Curriculum-Compulsory-Schooling/dp/0865714487/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241441360&sr=1-14]Amazon.com: Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (9780865714489): John Taylor Gatto: Books[/ame]
Dumbest Generation Home
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/High-Tech-Heretic-Reflections-Computer-Contrarian/dp/0385489765/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248093458&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: High-Tech Heretic: Reflections of a Computer Contrarian (9780385489768): Clifford Stoll: Books[/ame]
Are children getting dumber? « Prospect Magazine
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dumbest-Generation-Stupefies-Americans-Jeopardizes/dp/1585426393]Amazon.com: The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) (9781585426393): Mark Bauerlein: Books[/ame]
A Nation of Morons - TurnOffYourTV.com



From 'Notebook, A Quibble,' By Mark Slouka

"I was raised to be ashamed of my ignorance, and to try to do something about it if at all possible. I carry that burden to this day, and have successfully passed it on to my children. I don&#8217;t believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about&#8212;constitutional law, for example, or sailing&#8212;a notion that puts me sadly out of step with a growing majority of my countrymen,* many of whom may be unable to tell you anything at all about Islam, say, or socialism, or climate change, except that they hate it, are against it, don&#8217;t believe in it. Worse still (or more amusing, depending on the day) are those who can tell you, and then offer up a stew of New Age blather, right-wing rant, and bloggers&#8217; speculation that&#8217;s so divorced from actual, demonstrable fact, that&#8217;s so not true, as the kids would say, that the mind goes numb with wonder. &#8220;Way I see it is,&#8221; a man in the Tulsa Motel 6 swimming pool told me last summer, &#8220;if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it&#8217;s good enough for us.&#8221;*

Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God&#8217;s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. *Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you."*

Article appeared in Notesbook. Harper's Magazine


----------



## Samson (Dec 5, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Our math dept is not permitted to grade homework and tests and quizzes may not count for more than 40 percent of their grade. Hence, 60 percent of their "achievement" is based on having a face.
> ...



I've taught Science and Math to the entire spectrum of students, from 76% Free and Reduced Lunch Minorities taking 8th grade Math to the Elite AP Physics II students.

It had been my experience with both these groups, and all in between that the _last thing _parents want to concern themselves with is if their child is learning anything.

The former want free babysitting.

The latter want high GPA's.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 5, 2009)

I thought this worth adding to the discussion.  See Amazon review and comments quite interesting. 

NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children By Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman  

"Why don&#8217;t white parents talk about race? Why does praise produce underachievers? This blockbuster draws on years of psychological research to discuss how common knowledge about raising children does the opposite of what we expect. In 10 enthralling essays on topics such as how childhood sleep deprivation influences memory and why kids don&#8217;t outgrow lying, it manages to debunk tried-and-true parenting tenets as well as broach the bizarre world of childhood ethics: One study found that children thought that lying was the same as swearing, believing it to be an essentially harmless breach of etiquette rather than a possibly harmful moral transgression. But you don&#8217;t need kids to fall under the book&#8217;s spell. Combining the fascination of pop psych with rigorous application of science, NurtureShock is more people manual than parenting manual."

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/NurtureShock-New-Thinking-About-Children/dp/0446504122/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260064684&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (9780446504126): Po Bronson, Ashley Merryman: Books[/ame]


----------



## Samson (Dec 6, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> I thought this worth adding to the discussion.  See Amazon review and comments quite interesting.
> 
> NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children By Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman
> 
> ...



The more I read about "NEW THINKING ABOUT CHILDREN" The more I wonder; "what was wrong with how Spartans Raised Children?"


----------

