I think the fact the writers of the C&E standards avoided the term 'proof' in the document was a mistake. They were possibly concerned about the emphasis on the 'form' of proofs often seen in teaching of two-column proofs. I reall don't know. However, as I look through the 'reasoning' standards for K-4, 5-8, and 9-12, there seems to be a reasonable development toward more rigorous proofs. One question (philosophical, possibly) is the place they do use the word 'proof' it appears in discussing college-bound students. I think it can be argued that even those students who don't go to colleges can benefit from understanding (more regorous and formal) proofs.
Tad Watanabe Towson State University Twoson, Maryland
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Jack Roach wrote: > I am not sure of just what might be included as "mathematical > structure" but surely the idea of proof is central. There is a simple way > to make a rough determination of what the Standards say, or fail to say, > about proof. You and others might like to go to > http://www.enc.org/online/nctm/280dtoc1.html > and use the search feature to find occurrences of the word _proof_ and > variations in the various sections.