> > I did not say that they THINK that all teachers are competent. > I said that they say what incompetent teachers want to hear. > Of course, a few especially inappropriate teachers will > suffer even under their system, but only very few. > And the word `articulating' is most inappropriate when speaking > about the NCTM "standards" - they are the most UNarticulate > documents I have ever seen. >
Well, if the issue is certain readers interpreting the documents in the way they want to, then I see the problem on both sides. I sometime wonder if those people who criticize the standards have actually read the docments. Somehow or rather, they seem to read the documents with completely different sets of lenses. And, I suppose if that is because the documents are not articulate enough, maybe you have a valid point.
> > The President of USA should appoint an advisory committee for > intellectual affairs. Although I am very busy, I agree to chair it. > My first decree will be: require that every > graduate from every high school can > a) do mental and paper-and-pencil arithmetics WITHOUT A CALCULATOR, > b) solve simple word problems AND GET THE RIGHT ANSWERS, > c) solve simple problems in elementary geometry, > d) solve simple problems in elementary physics, > e) graph simple functions BY HAND.
I would think these goals are not necessarily incmpatible with the standards.
Anyway, I think you need to articulate a little bit more about the words like "simple" and "elementary" in order for these statements to be useful goals.
> Teachers who cannot teach solving problems will have > to choose between teaching athletics and retirement. > They will be replaced by immigrants from Russia. >
So, what does a teacher need to know and be able to do to teach their students so that they can meet these goals?
Tad Watanabe Towson State University Towson, Maryland