|
|
Re: 1996 National Meeting
Posted:
Apr 11, 1995 5:52 PM
|
|
No, Michelle, you are not weird. I am a recent convert to math
education (from research mathematics), and one of the things that
struck me as peculiar was the very long lead time required for
meetings. For meetings of the American Mathematical Society and
the Mathematical Association of America, the deadline for
speaker proposals is a few months. For example, for this summer's
meeting in Vermont, Aur. 6-8, the deadline is April 27. For the
annual meeting in January, the deadline for *organizers* of
topic sessions is April; the deadline for speakers hasn't even
been announced.
The reason that deadlines are fairly late is so that new developments
can be discussed. The fact that NCTM speakers must decide their topic
2 years in advance suggests that there is nothing new or urgent
in math education.
This is NOT what we have been telling everybody--we tell our
state boards of education and others that change needs to start
happening NOW!
Is anybody from the NCTM listening on this list?
Susan Addington (addington@gallium.csusb.edu)
Math Department, California State University
San Bernardino, CA 92407
World Wide Web: http://www.math.csusb.edu/
On Tue, 11 Apr 1995 Michelle@edc.org wrote:
> Now, *before* the NCTM conference in Boston this year, I had to
> send in my speaker response form for *next year's* conference.
> That means that over one year in advance, I had to finalize the
> title and description of my talk. Does this seem crazy to anyone
> but me? I know that it's time-consuming to put these things
> together, but there is no way we're hearing about new
> research/curriculum/materials in the sessions if that's the
> only way to get on the program.
|
|
