> We've been running a pilot of sorts the past year with the Applied Math > series from CORD. Another teacher has been doing it, and he says it's going > OK. He does complain, however, that the kids don't have the basics to deal > with it. My school is a pretty typical inner city LA school. > > Therefore, next year we'll make it a three year course with students having > to take a basic math course using the Saxon Algebra 1/2 books before they get > into the CORE materials. > > Ooops! I guess I mentionned a bad word... the "S" word. Books do work real > well, the kids actually learn and remember the stuff. > Applied Math is good in that it really addresses the school-to- work issue > head on, without all the fuzzy and PC stuff we're seeing in some of the newer > texts. > > BTW, has anyone read "Class Action"? It's sets out a real blueprint on how we > can actually implement meaningful standards and institute both student and > teacher accountability, something which is totally lacking in American > education. > > Seems to me the NCTM standards don't have much to do with real standards. > Every standard I've ever heard of means real objective criteria judged by > standardized forms of assessment. And usually that means tests with real > content that can be studied for. All I hear about lately is nonsense about > portfolios which only show that a student once knew something some time ago. > > So there :) > > Dan Hart > San Fernando H.S. > LAUSD > Well, I wouldn't want Dan to think I'm asleep at the wheel. Clearly, everything he said is wrong. ;-). In fact, it's intuitively obvious that everything he said is wrong. The proof is left as an exercise for the student.